The gay marriage issue.

[Anonymous]

When it comes down to the bottom line, there is no constitutional requirement that the law be logical. So the majority has the right to dictate to the minority.

The good news from Maine is that it is now a 53% majority, not the 90% it would have been a few decades ago. There is hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see it as a ban. they simply do not qualify. marriage in the US is one man, one woman. not qualifying doesn't mean its a ban.

And Blacks didn't qualify to vote under Jim Crow laws. And Jews didn't qualify to live outside of ghettos in Poland. You can gerryrig the qualifications any way you want to exclude a group. It's been used for years to create institutionalized discrimination.

Oh dear God -- you're right, being opposed to gay marriage is the equivalent of Jim Crow (although gays are allowed to vote) and the Holocaust. I am totally convinced now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see it as a ban. they simply do not qualify. marriage in the US is one man, one woman. not qualifying doesn't mean its a ban.

And Blacks didn't qualify to vote under Jim Crow laws. And Jews didn't qualify to live outside of ghettos in Poland. You can gerryrig the qualifications any way you want to exclude a group. It's been used for years to create institutionalized discrimination.

Oh dear God -- you're right, being opposed to gay marriage is the equivalent of Jim Crow (although gays are allowed to vote) and the Holocaust. I am totally convinced now.

Voting is a right that blacks didn't qualify for.

Marriage is a right that gays don't qualify for.

If you fail to see the parallel, I'd say you're beyond convincing. But your logic is strikingly similar to those who created the Jim Crow laws.

The people who created and enforce the Jim Crow laws, or went along just fine with the ghettos, probably said something similar in their day. Looking back, we don't understand how they could have had Jim Crow laws.

[Anonymous]

It's perfectly reasonable to decide that marriage is between only two people. That makes sense for logistical purposes if for no other reason. There's no good reason, though, to restrict it to opposite sex people only. Why? Procreation is a terrible reason, unless we also want to limit the infertile, the elderly, and the child-free by choice.

Every person should be able to pick the one person they want to marry. That's all. Then every person has the same right: to marry the one person they choose. That's a very easy and reasonable limit to institute, and after it's instituted, if people want to argue that you should be able to marry multiple people, we can have that (unlikely) debate then.

I still haven't heard a reason other than "but polygamy is next." Does anyone have one?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, one major different between gay marriage and blonde marriage is that a blonde man and woman can have children. You're really saying that that biological fact is totally irrelevant to the marriage debate?

That is not a biological fact. Not all blond couples can have children. On the other hand, gay and straight couples are capable of being great parents. Both are also capable of being lousy parents. I personally think skill in parenting is more important than an ability to breed.

Anonymous wrote:
And even if you are right regarding gays -- as I think you probably are -- aren't bisexuals still a problematic case then? Do you believe that some individuals are born bi? Why should they have to choose one or the other?

If bi-sexuals want to make an argument in favor of marriage arrangements suitable for them, I'm all ears.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

If bi-sexuals want to make an argument in favor of marriage arrangements suitable for them, I'm all ears.

That's principled, I respect the consistency of your view on that. Not sure why polygamy is so hard a bullet to bite for other gay marriage advocates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's perfectly reasonable to decide that marriage is between only two people. That makes sense for logistical purposes if for no other reason. There's no good reason, though, to restrict it to opposite sex people only. Why? Procreation is a terrible reason, unless we also want to limit the infertile, the elderly, and the child-free by choice.

Every person should be able to pick the one person they want to marry. That's all. Then every person has the same right: to marry the one person they choose. That's a very easy and reasonable limit to institute, and after it's instituted, if people want to argue that you should be able to marry multiple people, we can have that (unlikely) debate then.

I still haven't heard a reason other than "but polygamy is next." Does anyone have one?

I still haven't heard any good reason for limiting marriage to one person. Why that limit? Surely "logistical purposes" are no reason to abridge such a fundamental and important right as the right to marry. Your point about everyone having the same right does no work at all -- everyone now has the same right -- to marry the opposite sex person of their choosing -- but you are not at all satisfied with that situation. That is also a very easy and reasonable limit to institute -- certainly the majority of people in this country think that it is reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the danger with polygamy -- that young girls will be forced into marriage and abused such as with the Warren Jeffs case. There is a perfectly good reason to keep restrictions on polygamy but no reason to keep two consenting adults from being joined in marriage.

Big Love is some kind of fantasy. The real world is Warren Jeffs.

Here is the problem with homosexuality: men having sex with boys!
I am kidding, but a pedophile is just that. They come in all forms. Controlling spouses will always be there, even in gay relationships.

[Anonymous]

I still haven't heard any good reason for limiting marriage to one person. Why that limit? Surely "logistical purposes" are no reason to abridge such a fundamental and important right as the right to marry. Your point about everyone having the same right does no work at all -- everyone now has the same right -- to marry the opposite sex person of their choosing -- but you are not at all satisfied with that situation. That is also a very easy and reasonable limit to institute -- certainly the majority of people in this country think that it is reasonable.

I'm indifferent on polygamy. If there is a push for polygamy to be legalized, I'd certainly be open-minded about it. I just don't think that is a logical next step after gay marriage, and right now -- right now in this country, and right now in this thread -- we're talking about gay marriage, not polygamy. So let's talk about gay marriage. What other opposition to it do you have, except the polygamy red herring?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are right, I do not know the difference between 2 and 3. Guilty as charged. Despite my little problems in the counting department, however, to many people it is just as obvious to them that one can choose for marriage to be between a man and a woman, as it is for you to choose that it can be 2 but not 3. Why are you right, and they wrong?

As I said many pages ago, this is very simple. Individuals are born gay. They are not born polygamist. Polygamy is a choice. Sexual orientation is not. Opposing gay marriage is similar to opposing marriage by people with blond hair. Neither chose to be born that way (despite the fervent wishes for the latter by so many).

Jeff as I have stated before, this is weak. First of all some gays do choose. It has been shown that for some it is a choice. By your logic, bisexuals should be excluded for gay marriage since they can choose. Do we do a test, inborn homosexuality vs acquired? Allow marriage for the inborn, counsel the acquired?

Also, the way the stats are WRT adultery and divorce (70%, 50% respectively), looks like it IS natural that a man LOVE more than one woman, and possible a woman love more than one man. They did it in the Bible, they allow it in Islam, so it is not that unheard of.

BTW, Mr. W. Jeffs is nuts. However, many people who follow that life are happy. They would be even happier if they weren't always on the run. They could come out and be proud (sound familiar). Of course, forcing young girls to marry is a problem, but heck, I have a friend who did not marry the man she loved because her parents would have "killed" her. Rich suburban woman too.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how your objections to polygamy necessarily require a prohibition on gay marriage.

There is no logic, only tradition, that limits marriage to a man and a woman. The procreative aspect is out as a justification, since clearly men and women can marry with no intention of procreation. The religious aspect is out, since U.S. law cannot endorse a particular religion. So all that is left is "this is the way it has been done". If that's true, then there should be no barrier to allowing gay marriage, because you can just as arbitrarily include that within U.S. law, while still excluding polygamy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how your objections to polygamy necessarily require a prohibition on gay marriage.

There is no logic, only tradition, that limits marriage to a man and a woman. The procreative aspect is out as a justification, since clearly men and women can marry with no intention of procreation. The religious aspect is out, since U.S. law cannot endorse a particular religion. So all that is left is "this is the way it has been done". If that's true, then there should be no barrier to allowing gay marriage, because you can just as arbitrarily include that within U.S. law, while still excluding polygamy.

How can you exclude polygamy with your argument?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are right, I do not know the difference between 2 and 3. Guilty as charged. Despite my little problems in the counting department, however, to many people it is just as obvious to them that one can choose for marriage to be between a man and a woman, as it is for you to choose that it can be 2 but not 3. Why are you right, and they wrong?

As I said many pages ago, this is very simple. Individuals are born gay. They are not born polygamist. Polygamy is a choice. Sexual orientation is not. Opposing gay marriage is similar to opposing marriage by people with blond hair. Neither chose to be born that way (despite the fervent wishes for the latter by so many).

I don't think this is a settled question. Most recent research seems to indicate we are all over the map in degree to which we are either heterosexual or homosexual, with many many statistically relevant environmental factors playing a huge role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the same people who are against gay marriage seem to think that marriage encourages children being born into families. They also seem to be very ignorant of the degree of single mothers out there. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and how often does the man stick around long enough to marry the mother of his child. It's rampant in our society now.

The opposition to gay marriage seems to be so effective in preserving the family unit - not.

ok, maybe the worst logic yet. You are using an example that supports traditional marriage. It is very much a bad thing when unmarried couples have babies and the man takes off. I'd rather they get married and he stays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When it comes down to the bottom line, there is no constitutional requirement that the law be logical. So the majority has the right to dictate to the minority.

The good news from Maine is that it is now a 53% majority, not the 90% it would have been a few decades ago. There is hope.

Actually, the framers of the Constitution created it in part to protect against the Tyranny of the Majority. Read the Federalist Papers. This notion is pretty prominent in our Constitutional history.