The gay marriage issue.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

That problem is easily solved by existing age-of-consent laws, and provides no reason to keep three consenting adults from being joined in marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That problem is easily solved by existing age-of-consent laws, and provides no reason to keep three consenting adults from being joined in marriage.

And it's working so well so far. Read more about the Jeffs case and see what good that law did for young people forced into this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You really assign tradition no weight in considering what is reasonable and what is not? I find that difficult to believe.

Tradition means that the man is the head of the household and a woman is an appendage. Are you willing to go back to the time when you couldn't own property and you had to obey your husband even if he was abusing you?

I was making a more limited point -- we look to tradition all the time in defining what is, and what is not, a fundamental right. All I was saying is that we should exercise some caution in departing from tradition, because it is difficult to fully foresee all of the consequences. Are there times when such departures are justified? Of course.

[Anonymous]

I still don't get why being in favor of gay marriage means we have to endorse polygamy. Again, this is a description of human nature as if we have no control over our behavior and that gay marriage is a precipice off which we will slip to our destruction. If gays get married, in a fast New York minute, then men will marry more than one woman, people will marry animals, and adults will marry children.

Sorry, in my universe people know how to distinguish between those things and make educated choices. Where are you living?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That problem is easily solved by existing age-of-consent laws, and provides no reason to keep three consenting adults from being joined in marriage.

And it's working so well so far. Read more about the Jeffs case and see what good that law did for young people forced into this situation.

How on Earth does child abuse mean that we need to ban what consenting adults do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't get why being in favor of gay marriage means we have to endorse polygamy. Again, this is a description of human nature as if we have no control over our behavior and that gay marriage is a precipice off which we will slip to our destruction. If gays get married, in a fast New York minute, then men will marry more than one woman, people will marry animals, and adults will marry children.

Sorry, in my universe people know how to distinguish between those things and make educated choices. Where are you living?

The point is that there is no principled distinction between the two, and when you talk about people having a right, it needs to be based on some meaningful principle. The same arguments that justify gay marriage, justify polygamy. If it is the right of two gay people to marry, why do three people not have the same right? What are you going to say when a polygamous group asks to have their marriage recognized? If it's just, "sorry, we like gay marriage but don't like polygamy," then you are no different than those who oppose gay marriage, save for being a tad hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't get why being in favor of gay marriage means we have to endorse polygamy. Again, this is a description of human nature as if we have no control over our behavior and that gay marriage is a precipice off which we will slip to our destruction. If gays get married, in a fast New York minute, then men will marry more than one woman, people will marry animals, and adults will marry children.

Sorry, in my universe people know how to distinguish between those things and make educated choices. Where are you living?

The point is that there is no principled distinction between the two, and when you talk about people having a right, it needs to be based on some meaningful principle. The same arguments that justify gay marriage, justify polygamy. If it is the right of two gay people to marry, why do three people not have the same right? What are you going to say when a polygamous group asks to have their marriage recognized? If it's just, "sorry, we like gay marriage but don't like polygamy," then you are no different than those who oppose gay marriage, save for being a tad hypocritical.

What, you can't count? Don't you know the difference between 2 and 3? One most certainly can choose to decide that relationships should be between 2 consenting adults and no more.

Your argument is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What, you can't count? Don't you know the difference between 2 and 3? One most certainly can choose to decide that relationships should be between 2 consenting adults and no more.

Your argument is ridiculous.

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?

[jsteele]

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).

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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 think many people by natural inclination might be polyamorous just as many might be gay. Polygamy and marriage are social institutions; they do not necessary reflect 'how we are born'.

[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).

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?

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?