Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage!
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 61 of 97 (86380)
02-15-2004 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by berberry
02-15-2004 2:34 AM


Re: Why is it important?
berberry responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Even in the US, the average same-sex relationship lasts longer than the average mixed-sex relationship.
Where do you come by data to support this? I ask because I've not noticed this at all
Oh, I'm going to have to search for the notes again. The study found, if I recall the numbers correctly, that gay men actually tended to have the longest-lasting relationships, about 8.9 years on average, compared to something in the 7s for lesbians and 6s for straights.
This study of only gay couples found that gay men tended to have longer relationships than gay women (6.9 years to 4.9):
Partners National Survey of Lesbian & Gay Couples
Overlooked Opinions published in the mid-90s that straight relationships were about 7 years, gay male about 9, and lesbian about 20. And if we look at the divorce rate of heterosexual to homosexual couples in those countries that do allow same-sex marriage, we find that it's less than half.
quote:
Is my experience misleading me?
According to the studies I've seen, yes.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by berberry, posted 02-15-2004 2:34 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 3:26 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 65 by berberry, posted 02-15-2004 1:02 PM Rrhain has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 97 (86383)
02-15-2004 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain
02-15-2004 3:22 AM


The study found, if I recall the numbers correctly, that gay men actually tended to have the longest-lasting relationships, about 8.9 years on average, compared to something in the 7s for lesbians and 6s for straights.
Huh. Based on nothing but popular stereotypes about men, that's exactly the opposite of what I would expect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 3:22 AM Rrhain has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 63 of 97 (86420)
02-15-2004 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rrhain
02-15-2004 2:15 AM


REMINDER
quote:
That's because holmes is stuck on the idea that he has only now directly expressed that marriage is a hub-and-spoke arrangement. What if it's a maximally interconnected arrangement?
I have directly expressed (though never used to the term) "hub and spoke" arrangements for Polygamous marriage. You simply refuse to understand, or are incapable of understanding.
I have also stated that "group marriage" (maximally interconnected) under SINGLE CONTRACT would be different and require more changes to laws (to take in some of the nuances this might create).
But yet again, you have not listened, or are incapable of understanding the words I have written. Both your previous two posts were filled with questions that I have already answered (in this thread and later within the posts you were addressing).
Once again, either communication is impossible between us because you refuse to understand my words, or are incapable of understanding them. Perhaps if you stopped reading and responding to each sentence as if they were disconnected would help you in this endeavor.
Amd one of the biggest indicators is that your responded to me at all. As yet another reminder:
PLEASE STOP RESPONDING TO MY POSTS.
If you have something to say regarding something I have said, please make a general reply to topic, and state counterfactuals instead of posing questions to me.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-15-2004]

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 59 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 2:15 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 4:40 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 64 of 97 (86426)
02-15-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 1:57 AM


quote:
Well, I don't know all the laws, but when I look at my marriage license, there's no gendered terms. It lists us by name.
It all varies state by state. You are correct that no one need change things on the contract so much as the law itself, because of course the contracts can always be altered by hand by the participants in the contract (as long as they all sign the changes).
But a change in marriage law will more than likely become change in contract for accuracy, unless everyone wants to agree to use outmoded contracts from now on?
quote:
The laws may very well say "bride" and "groom" but that's hardly a gender requirement.
Well actually it is. Laws are pretty sticky about definitions of things. Bride and Groom may seem tongue and cheek to everyone not taking this "definition of marriage" thing seriously, but legally Bride and Groom are gender specific.
As noted above, they could always scratch out bride and put in groom themselves.
quote:
Does it matter? Infertile couples in the same states get the blood tests too, I imagine, as well as those with no desire for children.
Well, no desire means nothing as accidents can happen. But infertile couples is a good question. If they go in knowing they cannot have kids (not usually the case but very plausible), must they have the blood tests?
Good point on that.
quote:
When a spouse divorces, there's an obligation for support if they supplied income to the family. If you divorce a man, and you were supporting him and his wives, who do you owe support to?
To the man you have the contract with, and (to head off a possible future question) you'd owe child support for the children you had with the man and not the other women.
The family will always be defined legally the same between two persons as under any other type of marriage... your spouse and your children.
quote:
It just seems more complicated to me... Polygamy is simply one subset of plural marriages. Where's the legal precident for a marriage of three guys and two women?
Ahhhhhhh... what you are doing is looking into many different permutations of multiple marriages and so making ALL OF THEM more complicated.
I have already said (in another thread) that if we were to move to group marriages as opposed to simple polygamy, such that more than one person is legally tied to each other within the same contract, then there will be necessary changes in law (and contracts obviously) and give rise to complications.
For example, if two of the people in a five way marriage want to get divorced, but remain married to the other three... oh boy.
So yeah, I agree that group marriage will bring up complications. Whether this gives reason to deny their right to do so, or claim that because of these complications they are not appealing to the same constitutional grounds gays are, I do not agree.
But that is separate from simple polygamy, which is single contracts between partners who want to be married. You could even do group marriages this way and then NOT run into problems.
Will they be complex to handle if problems occur? Yeah, they'd have more layers, but none requiring change of law. This is the same for marriages between very rich people that have estates they want protected, or with children where some get adopted (from previous marriages) and some don't.
quote:
But just because you don't like plural marriage is hardly a reason to deny gay people their rights.
This I completely agree with. My problem is with gay marriage activists that are so in tune with their own political needs they deny that others are making the same constitutional claim as they are, simply to avoid getting tied into that other group.
Rrhain is a good example of this. I know he is not against polygamous marriage, and would probably support them when "their turn" came around. But he turns his whole argument around when it comes to whether polygamists are due their rights under the same constitutional claims as gays. He actually said at least polygamists get to marry, so they are not being deprived of their right to marry... missing the whole point of what POLYGAMY means... and the rights that would give their relationship.

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 56 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 1:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 2:47 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 71 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 5:29 PM Silent H has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 97 (86430)
02-15-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain
02-15-2004 3:22 AM


Re: Why is it important?
This is an interesting survey, but I don't see any reference to heterosexual relationships so I still wonder where the data that show them to be typically shorter than gay relationships comes from. Before reading your earlier post I would have guessed that lesbian relationships last the longest, then straight relationships with gay male relationships lasting the shortest of any.
I wonder if perhaps your information is correct for the nation as a whole while my perception might be correct for the Deep South. If so, there must be something about the gay experience here that is drastically different elsewhere. That something may have to do with the religious environment here; I wonder. It's an interesting question.
At any rate, there's one more thing about this survey that I'd like to know: how is 'relationship' defined? I see also that the the survey uses the phrase 'major relationship' in a couple places. How would that be defined? From the statement that "relationships averaged nearly six years in length for all couples" I gather that there must be some standard to be met before a new couple can be said to have a 'relationship'. Do you know what that standard is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 3:22 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 5:34 PM berberry has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 97 (86442)
02-15-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Silent H
02-15-2004 12:40 PM


You are correct that no one need change things on the contract so much as the law itself, because of course the contracts can always be altered by hand by the participants in the contract (as long as they all sign the changes).
That's something else I don't understand. I'm married, but the license isn't an enumeration of the rights and privledges of marriage. It just says we're married.
So what "contract" are you referring to? I was following you when it seemed you were talking about an implicit contract, but now it appears that you're referring to an actual, printed contract that I've never seen.
I mean, how can I inital changes to an implied contract?
Laws are pretty sticky about definitions of things.
That may be, but I doubt that the law bothers to define "bride" and "groom" anywhere. Just like it doesn't bother to define "is."
I could be wrong, but I guess you'd have to show me.
This doesn't seem to be either here or there. I think the topic was the gay marriage amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 12:40 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 3:25 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 4:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 67 of 97 (86454)
02-15-2004 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 2:47 PM


quote:
So what "contract" are you referring to? I was following you when it seemed you were talking about an implicit contract, but now it appears that you're referring to an actual, printed contract that I've never seen.
Heheheh... the license is the list of legal requirements for permission by the state to get married. It's prereqs are usually in it, including bias of one man and one woman.
The act of marriage is creating a legally binding contract between you and your spouse. The default rights/responsibilities are codified in the legal books of your states and so by marrying you agree to them, even if they are not printed all over your license.
HOWEVER, many people do not like the defaults and so create their own contracts so as to set their own agreements. A pre-nup is this kind of thing. Also, in cases of marriage between people of different nations, the marriage license may include a bit more of the "contractual" looking stuff.
I guess I am prediposed to viewing marriage as a bit more complex than everyone seems to make out here, since my step father (well ex-step father now) was a lawyer who dealt with marriage/divorce cases a lot. And (separate from this) I have been party to the complicated structures of international matrimony.
On a personal note, my family has been through numerous marriages/divorces, and more complicated than this the custodial rights (which are often codified by sex) of children from previous marriages.
Marriage is simple as long as one never has the misfortune of running into the actual laws which lie behind them.
Here is a semi-valuable site about marriage in the US (this page mentioning how it is a contract and codified as opposite sex... and on one of the pages indicates bride is "her").

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 66 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 2:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 4:42 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 97 (86461)
02-15-2004 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 2:47 PM


While doing a bit more research I came upon another interesting site which discusses the nature of marriage.
In particular, the site shows how marriage is defined much more broadly as a state between opposite sexes, than between two individuals. In fact, the idea that marriage is monogamous is a minority opinion among nations even today (usually confined to regions of Judeo-Xian influence... with the exception of China).
Here's the link to prevalence of polygamy. In case you don't want to skip over there here is a good quote...
Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones. In 1994 , Theodore C. Bergstrom noted in his paper "On the Economics of Polygyny" [1](U. Mich. Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory, Working Paper Series 94-11)... Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas , polygyny (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850.
Here's the link to legal situation of polygamy. Essentially it can be seen that where polygamy has been repressed, it is because of overt religious/cultural bigotry and NOT because it was anathema to the basic concept of marriage. In fact, the history of polygamy section on this page shows that it was accepted in Xianity for some time.
On the other hand, while same-sex marriage did exist throughout the world's history, it is much more restricted in time and cultures... not to mention generally TEMPORARY with the male partners bonding to women at some point.
Here is a link to history of same-sex marriage.
Here is a link to modern state of same-sex marriage. This link shows that UNLIKE POLYGAMY, same-sex marriage is just not that prevalent as a practice or concept of marriage.
Again, this says nothing one way or the other as to whether either should not be given proper rights within the US. It is just to say ANY appeals to the idea that same-sex marriage is less a change to the concept and practice of marriage, than is polygamy, is fallacious (or at best ethnocentric to the same degree as those saying marriage is one man and one woman).
DOMA proponents are correct in pointing out that once gay marriage is allowed there will be no logical constraint to keep the doors closed on polygamy.
Too bad for those proponents.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-15-2004]

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 66 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 2:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 5:43 PM Silent H has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 69 of 97 (86466)
02-15-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Silent H
02-15-2004 11:52 AM


Re: REMINDER
holmes responds to me:
quote:
I have directly expressed (though never used to the term) "hub and spoke" arrangements for Polygamous marriage.
While it is true you never used the term, you never made even indirect reference to the concept. That's why I kept asking you if marriage was transitive.
And what you don't seem to understand is that we have to make the determination of whether the contract of marriage is a link between two individuals (either or both of whom might already be married to another person) or whether it is a connection between a person (and all the people he is married to) and all the people to whom he wishes to marry into.
The current marriage laws don't specify what it is. They only recognize two people and thus there is no difference between the two arrangements. Your assumption that expansion of marriage to more than two people would be of a hub-and-spoke arrangement is precisely that: An assumption.
But even if we assume that marriage is hub-and-spoke, you still haven't dealt with the aspects of the rights and responsibilties of marriage.
If a married person dies, his spouse has a right to survivor's benefits. If he is married to more than one person, do each of his spouses have an equal right or does he merely have a single benefit that will be divided amongst his spouses?
We have to make a decision about this...one that we have never had to do given the way marriage was like before. There may be a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, but the fact that we have to ask the question in the first place is the point at hand.
quote:
PLEASE STOP RESPONDING TO MY POSTS.
Oh, please.
Grow up. If you don't like my comments, then don't read them. Nobody forces you to do anything you don't want to do. I will respond to whatever post I wish to until such time as the moderators let me know that I have overstepped the bounds.
quote:
If you have something to say regarding something I have said, please make a general reply to topic, and state counterfactuals instead of posing questions to me.
Fat chance.
Get over yourself and answer the question:
What, specifically, would be different about the administration of marriage if we changed the words "husband" and "wife" for the word "spouse"?
Would same-sex couples get extra votes at elections? Would they have to pay higher property taxes? Would the right to sponsor foreign spouses for citizenship disappear? What about the ability to file taxes jointly? The right to make medical decisions for the other when incapacitated?
Be specific. You keep saying that things would change, but you have yet to come up with a single thing. The closest you have done is to say that there would be printing costs reflecting the change in the law as if that actually had something to do with the rights and responsibilities that come along with the contract of marriage.
Why is this so hard for you?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 11:52 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 6:53 PM Rrhain has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 97 (86467)
02-15-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Silent H
02-15-2004 3:25 PM


the license is the list of legal requirements for permission by the state to get married. It's prereqs are usually in it, including bias of one man and one woman.
Like I said, I'm literally looking at mine right now and it lists my wife and I as "participants." There is no change that would need to be made to this document if both of us were the same sex.
I don't remember the application well enough to be sure if it listed us as participants there, or if it did say bride and groom.
I imagine the point in Minnesota marriage licenses is not to pave the way for an eventual adoption of gay marriage but rather to suggest equality between spouses - so that the groom doesn't always have top billing.
So far I haven't actually seen any marriage laws that reference "bride" or "groom". What I see a lot of is the term "spouse", which is gender-neutral. So what exactly has to be changed? You keep saying we have to change these terms, that hetersexuality is "built in", but I haven't seen that anywhere in my state. I guess I'd like you to dig up at least one example of a law that says "bride and groom", or better yet, "man and woman", rather than "spouse".
I thought this part of your site was interesting:
quote:
In all states except Hawaii and Vermont, couples must be of the opposite sex to form a valid marriage.
Now, nowhere on the application did we have to certify that we were heterosexual. I imagine that, had we both been men, they simply would have just refused to give us the license application, or refused to certify it. But the license itself doesn't check for gender.
If it's just policy that prevents gay marriage, and not the actual letter of the marriage forms, it's going to be pretty easy to redact the laws, I think.
Out of curiosity, what happens if I'm married to a woman and she gets a sex-reassignment? Or if she's diagnosed with XY syndrome? What happens to a legal marriage if the sex of one of the participants suddenly becomes less clear? Has this ever happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 3:25 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 5:47 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 6:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 71 of 97 (86472)
02-15-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Silent H
02-15-2004 12:40 PM


holmes responds to crashfrog:
quote:
quote:
Does it matter? Infertile couples in the same states get the blood tests too, I imagine, as well as those with no desire for children.
Well, no desire means nothing as accidents can happen. But infertile couples is a good question. If they go in knowing they cannot have kids (not usually the case but very plausible), must they have the blood tests?
Yes. Because they're not checking for genetic defects but rather for venereal disease and tuberculosis.
quote:
quote:
When a spouse divorces, there's an obligation for support if they supplied income to the family. If you divorce a man, and you were supporting him and his wives, who do you owe support to?
To the man you have the contract with,
Why? Why not to all the other wives, too? You're assuming marriage is hub-and-spoke and there is no evidence to suggest that it is.
quote:
and (to head off a possible future question) you'd owe child support for the children you had with the man and not the other women.
Why? Why not them, too? You're assuming marriage is hub-and-spoke and there is no evidence to suggest that it is. In fact, current attitudes regarding child support indicate that marriage is a maximally interconnected arrangement. To wit, if a married woman has an affair and becomes pregnant, her husband is considered the legal father and is financially responsible for the child should they divorce, even though he is not the biological father.
quote:
The family will always be defined legally the same between two persons as under any other type of marriage... your spouse and your children.
But if you have more than one spouse, what happens then?
quote:
quote:
It just seems more complicated to me... Polygamy is simply one subset of plural marriages. Where's the legal precident for a marriage of three guys and two women?
Ahhhhhhh... what you are doing is looking into many different permutations of multiple marriages and so making ALL OF THEM more complicated.
Incorrect. Multiple marriage by definition includes a marriage of three men and two women.
Once again, you're assuming that marriage is hub-and-spoke and you have provided no reason to justify that assumption.
quote:
I have already said (in another thread) that if we were to move to group marriages as opposed to simple polygamy,
Why the assumption that "simple polygamy" means hub-and-spoke rather than maximally interconnected? Why is it the one you chose over the other one? I dare say, just going off of personal experience, I don't know of a single triad where it's hub-and-spoke. Oh, I know they exist. After all, men get busted for bigamy all the time where the wives don't know that they're married to a bigamist. I'm simply pointing out that all of the examples of relationships among more than one person that I know of personally, every single one of them considers themselves a trio.
The only reason I can think of to lean toward hub-and-spoke is the assumption that all the people involved are Kinsey 0s and thus would never be involved in having sex with someone of the same sex. But as we have seen regarding the controversy over same-sex marriage, that is an unwarranted assumption.
quote:
So yeah, I agree that group marriage will bring up complications.
And how is that not "polygamy"? How is that not "multiple marriage"? Why do you simply assume that we're talking about hub-and-spoke arrangements and not maximally interconnected ones?
quote:
But that is separate from simple polygamy,
Why the assumption that "simple polygamy" is hub-and-spoke?
It would seem that your concept of "simple polygamy" would better be termed "strictly heterosexual polygamy."
quote:
which is single contracts between partners who want to be married.
And when the hub dies, what rights do all the spokes have? The original contract was based on the idea that there was going to be only one claim. Now there is more than one. What do we do?
quote:
Will they be complex to handle if problems occur? Yeah, they'd have more layers, but none requiring change of law.
So how do we handle something like the right to make medical decisions when the spouse is incapacitated? Suppose one spouse wants to go in one direction while another spouse disagrees? Who is the final authority? Under marriage as we currently understand it, it is simply the "spouse" that has that right. Well, now there are two people who have that title, so which one do we defer to?
quote:
This is the same for marriages between very rich people that have estates they want protected, or with children where some get adopted (from previous marriages) and some don't.
But you keep avoiding the issues I have raised.
Survivor's benefits are the rights of those that lived. They were created with the assumption that there would be only one spouse to make the claim. Now that there is more than one, what do we do? Do they all get the same amount or do we split it among the survivors?
quote:
My problem is with gay marriage activists that are so in tune with their own political needs they deny that others are making the same constitutional claim as they are, simply to avoid getting tied into that other group.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh please. The claim for polygamy is not the same constitutional claim as for same-sex marriage.
Again, you have an assignment:
Go through the rights and responsibilities that come along with marriage as currently defined. In that list, determine if the effect of those rights and responsibilities would change if we substituted "spouse" for "husband" and "wife."
Now, do this again and change it from "husband" and "wife" to "all spouses."
And now, consider if you need to add any new legislation to tie up any loose ends that might need to be clarified given the new arrangement.
If you find that nothing changes in regard to the first but something does change in regard to the second or if you need to add legislation, then you will find that same-sex marriage doesn't actually change the contract of marriage while polygamy does change it.
That doesn't mean there is no constitutional claim for allowing polygamy. It merely means that those claims are not the same as those that are used to justify same-sex marriage.
In other words, the constitutional claim for same-sex marriage is that marriage already exists and the rights and responsibilities that are conferred by that contract would not change by the substitution of "spouse" for "husband" and "wife."
To justify polygamy, we would have to explain why the current contract of marriage is insufficient since it will have to change due to the differences between a marriage of two and a marriage of three.
quote:
But he turns his whole argument around when it comes to whether polygamists are due their rights under the same constitutional claims as gays.
But that's the point. If the claims are not the same, then they don't equate. Same-sex marriage requires no change in the contract of marriage. Polygamy does. The argument for same-sex marriage is that the contract exists and must be applied equally to all applicants. It does not seek to change the contract. Polygamy, on the other hand, states that the contract is insufficient and needs to be changed.
quote:
He actually said at least polygamists get to marry, so they are not being deprived of their right to marry.
Precisely...assuming that it's a heterosexual marriage, of course.
A person who wants to marry someone of the same sex, given the current marriage laws, cannot get married at all. But a person who wants to married more than one person (assuming heterosexuality), can still get married. He can't marry everyone he wants, but there is still the availability of the marriage contract as it currently exists.
There is a contract of marriage which has certain obligations that need to be met and confers certain rights and responsibilities. The argument for same-sex marriage recognizes that changing the obligation set to be "two persons" rather than "one man and one woman" does not change anything about the rights and responsibilities.
quote:
missing the whole point of what POLYGAMY means...
Indeed. You have missed the whole point of what polygamy means. You seem to think that it only means something out of the Bible. Reality shows that it includes all methods of combining more than two people.
quote:
and the rights that would give their relationship.
And indeed, you have missed what those right would be. I've asked you to spell them out and you have yet to come up with a single one.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 12:40 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 8:53 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 72 of 97 (86475)
02-15-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by berberry
02-15-2004 1:02 PM


Re: Why is it important?
berberry responds to me:
quote:
Do you know what that standard is?
Off the top of my head, I can't recall. I'd have to read the specifics to be sure. From what I think I remember, it was not that very unusual a definition. Living together, joint accounts, etc. How would you define a "major relationship" if you couldn't use marriage as the defining characteristic? My understanding when comparing to heterosexuals is that the criteria were the same...marriage was definitive but so was living together.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by berberry, posted 02-15-2004 1:02 PM berberry has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 73 of 97 (86478)
02-15-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Silent H
02-15-2004 4:09 PM


holmes writes:
[discussion of non-US practices of marriage deleted for space]
quote:
It is just to say ANY appeals to the idea that same-sex marriage is less a change to the concept and practice of marriage, than is polygamy, is fallacious (or at best ethnocentric to the same degree as those saying marriage is one man and one woman).
Um, what do the marriage practices of non-US countries and cultures have to do with the US legal definition of marriage?
In short, it really doesn't matter if every other country in the world allowed people to get married to any and all they wished. Here in the US, marriage is a monogamous relationship (and by "monogamous," I am referring to marriage, not sex.) Therefore, the question of whether or not same-sex marriage would "change marriage" in the US more than polygamous marriage, we have to use the current US definition as the standard.
quote:
DOMA proponents are correct in pointing out that once gay marriage is allowed there will be no logical constraint to keep the doors closed on polygamy.
Incorrect. There is no connection between the arguments for same-sex marriage and the arguments for polygamous marriage.
Same-sex marriage doesn't change the contract of marriage. Polygamous marriage does. There may be a perfectly good reason for changing the contract of marriage to allow polygamy, but the arguments for same-sex marriage have nothing to do with it.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2004 4:09 PM Silent H has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 74 of 97 (86479)
02-15-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 4:42 PM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
Out of curiosity, what happens if I'm married to a woman and she gets a sex-reassignment? Or if she's diagnosed with XY syndrome? What happens to a legal marriage if the sex of one of the participants suddenly becomes less clear? Has this ever happened?
Yes.
It depends upon the state. Some states go along with the idea that a sex change actually changes your sex. Other states are of the opinion that a sex change is simply an extreme cosmetic surgery and your sex has not actually changed.
Here's an article that discusses a couple of cases, one from Kansas and another from Texas:
Genetics vs. love

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 4:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 75 of 97 (86484)
02-15-2004 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by DC85
02-15-2004 12:23 AM


Re: Why is it important?
Read my post you replied to again. I didn't say that I cannot have friends who are women. You are playing a stupid game of over simplifing what I say to try to paint me as an undisiplined freak.
My post says that I choose to not have CLOSE personal female friends. Now you ask your wife if she has a problem with you having CLOSE personal female friends that you share most everything with and who know most everything about you and you go and hang out with without the company of your wife.
If you come back and say that she is perfectly cool with you having as many close personal friendships with women as you wish because she see's no difference with you going fishing with Trisha for the weekend alone vs. going fishing with Travis alone for the weekend then you're that majical one couple who have achieved 110% total trust and hey- more power to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by DC85, posted 02-15-2004 12:23 AM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 6:22 PM Lizard Breath 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