Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum   
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Archives » Gay Relationships, Next: Polygamy? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Gay Relationships, Next: Polygamy?
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Come on, Britney Spears? How long before we all say, Oops, she did it again, and makes another mockery marriage, while we all accept that kind of behavior as normal?

(Not that Oops, I did it again is a bad song. You gotta hear Richard Thompson's version.)

Locus, would that be your own affidavit?

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"It used to be traditional family values that a father could sell his daughters into slavery or have them all killed if he liked. Yes, that was Rome, but that was a traditional family value at the time."
In one of my previous posts, I defined my view of the traditional family.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Come on, Britney Spears? How long before we all say, Oops, she did it again, and makes another mockery marriage, while we all accept that kind of behavior as normal?"
I actually think that a lot of people are disgusted by her behavior. Have you been looking at the trend of her album sales? It's not that her music has gotten worse (Her Slave song was probably the most creative), it wasn't that good to begin with. Her over-the-top image has, I suspect, turned off a lot of her base.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That makes me happy. Marriage, as that one defines it, is not worth defending.

Notwithstanding my own proclivities, I have such trouble understanding why traditional conservatives, especially Christian-traditional conservatives, stand by what is OK with marriage, family, etc. today. I am starting to hear little noises about how marriage ought to be real, how annulment ought not to be easy, about fidelity and trying, etc. I hope it'll catch on with the conservative crowd cause then I would like them more [Smile]

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Locus
Member
Member # 540

 - posted      Profile for Locus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Zyne,

A personally(by me) signed document in hand that I don't practice it.

It's one of those federal sins right up there with terrorism and conspiring to overthrow the government. I'm trying to remember how much time I get to think it over if I got any of the answers wrong. I believe it was 15 to 30.

That's the last question I'm taking on that subject.

Posts: 678 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Notwithstanding my own proclivities, I have such trouble understanding why traditional conservatives, especially Christian-traditional conservatives, stand by what is OK with marriage, family, etc. today. I am starting to hear little noises about how marriage ought to be real, how annulment ought not to be easy, about fidelity and trying, etc. I hope it'll catch on with the conservative crowd cause then I would like them more"
Try befriending a staunch conservative, you might start to like them more. I have a few select liberal friends, but I have to admit that our friendships are not deep--it's mainly just social.

The vast majority of my friends are also conservatives, but that could just be where I live. In DC, conservatives tend to camp out together, and no matter where you go, you typically run into the same people again and again.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
FIJC

My point is that the idea of the "traditional" family and traditional family values have changed and are changing. Let polygamy be legal. The moment it is shown to be demostratably more harmful then traditional families we can change it back. The question is then what could three people do worse then what two people can do? I can't think of anything. But I can think of what they could do better: have more commited hands to raise the kids.

[ January 15, 2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: kelcimer ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, we [Mormons] didn't. We fought against the attacks against our marriage practices to the point that the Church risked destruction. Mind you, I don't think you can use 18th century Mormon society as an example of typical polygamous practices."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have two Mormon friends, and I do not think that either of them would approve of the idea of polygamy now. Do Mormons have a lot of religious splits within the church? In otherwords, are there theologically "liberal" and "conservative" divisions in Mormonism? Or is it pretty united?

Certainly, the issue of polygamy is firmly settled for Mormons today: don't do it, and I think most members would not be happy to see it reinstitutded (including me). I was talking about Mormon attitudes toward the end of the 19th century.

As for splits in Mormondom, we did have two groups split off after Joseph Smith's death, one of which disappeared fairly quickly; the other is still around with thousands of members. We also had some split off after the proclamation banning polygamy, but they are few and scattered. Within the church we do have theologically "liberal" and "conservative" people, but we don't really have organizations that differ theologically. I suspect that this is partly because a) our church leaders are rarely theologians, mostly being successful businessmen, doctors, teachers, etc., and b) while our "unofficial" theology is as expansive as any other Christian church, or "official" theology is more limited, so you can have knock-down arguments over theology without disagreeing over official church doctrine.

quote:
"One advantage for women is that those in polygamous relationships don't produce as many children. The result is that the women wouldn't be as worn out from childbirth and there was a lower adult:child ratio, so caring for children was easier."

I'm not certain this was true. From the numbers I've seen the early mormons bred like rabbits.

Sure. And by modern US standards we still do: my maternal grandmother had twelve children live long enough to produce grandchildren, my mother had six, and the first sister to marry stopped at five (she had her tubes tied after the twins). And I'm not saying that polygamous families didn't produce lots of children. I'm just saying that my understanding is that polygamous familes didn't produce as many children per woman.

quote:
Also much of the plural marriage as practiced inside the mormon faith appears to me as the bad side of religion/power rearing its ugly head.
I have no real knowledge of the practices of the current Utah polygamists, but I don't consider them Mormons either, any more than Lutherans are Catholic. As for the practices over a hundred years ago, not all Mormon men could practice polygamy - church leaders would ask a man to take additional wives (you could think of it as a sort of eugenics program), he could refuse (some did, including one of my ancestors), and his first (and at this point only) wife had veto power over whether there would be any more at all, as well over who the additinal wives might be. Also, while some polygamous families had one residence for everyone, others had a separate house for each wife.

quote:
Heh... I love it. More of the "gay acceptance leads to polygamy acceptance" line of bull.
It's more like "gay acceptance leads to polygamy acceptance if the Massachusetts court's reasoning is applied logically" thinking, and is quite correct. If marriage is an individual right that cannot be denied to gays, how can it be denied to polygamists?

[ January 16, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Doug64 ]

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's more like "gay acceptance leads to polygamy acceptance if the Massachusetts court's reasoning is applied logically" thinking, and is quite correct. If marriage is an individual right that cannot be denied to gays, how can it be denied to polygamists?
Because it's not the same thing. I repeat what has been pointed out ad infinitum—it's not the same thing. One man marrying five women is not the same as one woman marrying another woman (or man and a man). You're using a slippery slope illogic that cannot be legally applied with the Mass. court reasoning (unless you dumb it down and know jack about the law).
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Doug: Within the church we do have theologically "liberal" and "conservative" people, but we don't really have organizations that differ theologically. I suspect that this is partly because a) our church leaders are rarely theologians, mostly being successful businessmen, doctors, teachers, etc., and b) while our "unofficial" theology is as expansive as any other Christian church, or "official" theology is more limited, so you can have knock-down arguments over theology without disagreeing over official church doctrine.
FARMS and Sunstone. And with 15 “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” I would submit that we have almost as many different “camps” within the church as the Catholic church does; everyone tends to have their favorites that they connect with.

quote:
Leto: Because it's not the same thing. I repeat what has been pointed out ad infinitum—it's not the same thing. One man marrying five women is not the same as one woman marrying another woman (or man and a man). You're using a slippery slope illogic that cannot be legally applied with the Mass. court reasoning (unless you dumb it down and know jack about the law).
But it is the same thing – in the sense that if the government does not have the right to restrict the legal definition of marriage to “one man and one woman” to support homosexual marriage, then nether can the government restrict the legal definition of marriage to just two persons.

Everything that I’ve seen or read about the Mass. Court ruling indicates that the court found that the legal definition of ‘one man and one woman’, was unconstitutionally restrictive because it limits marriage to a man and a woman. If that is the case, then the same argument can be made about the word “one”.

Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No, Dan, it is not the same thing, because the government does have the right to restrict marriage laws to being between two people. Allowing and accepting polygamy would require the law to be re-written in terms of the law, while allowing and accepting homosexual marriage would not. The only thing stopping homosexual marriage from being accepted is social stigma.

Now, cue the other slippery-slopes: incest, beastiality, and pedophilia.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robertson, Ugly and Nohow
Member
Member # 1375

 - posted      Profile for Robertson, Ugly and Nohow   Email Robertson, Ugly and Nohow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Allowing and accepting polygamy would require the law to be re-written in terms of the law, while allowing and accepting homosexual marriage would not. The only thing stopping homosexual marriage from being accepted is social stigma.

Maybe in specific states (e.g. Mass.), same-sex marriage will not require a law re-write, but it does on the federal level.

Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton in 1996:

quote:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

I don't think these polygamists will get far. With the precedent they're using, they can probably get recognition that they are free to live in whatever sort of arrangements they want. But there's no federal court precedence (that I know of) for requiring states to recognize any alternative lifestyle arrangement as a marriage.
Posts: 450 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Leto: No, Dan, it is not the same thing, because the government does have the right to restrict marriage laws to being between two people. Allowing and accepting polygamy would require the law to be re-written in terms of the law, while allowing and accepting homosexual marriage would not. The only thing stopping homosexual marriage from being accepted is social stigma.
But the point is that the Mass. Court found that the state does not have the right to restrict legal marriage to any given subset – you can’t use gender in the description. If it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to a specific gender combination, than it logically follows that it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to a specific numeric combination, or the number of legal marriages that any individual can be part of for that matter. That’s the problem with expecting the courts to define what marriage is.

quote:
RUN: But there's no federal court precedence (that I know of) for requiring states to recognize any alternative lifestyle arrangement as a marriage.
I think that the concern is that all states are constitutionally bound to recognize all legal contracts entered into in the various states. Marriage – at least in terms of the courts and law is a legal contract. So far, no one has used a Vermont marriage (that I'm aware of) to challenge another state’s laws yet – but I’m sure that it’s coming.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robertson, Ugly and Nohow
Member
Member # 1375

 - posted      Profile for Robertson, Ugly and Nohow   Email Robertson, Ugly and Nohow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think that the concern is that all states are constitutionally bound to recognize all legal contracts entered into in the various states. Marriage – at least in terms of the courts and law is a legal contract. So far, no one has used a Vermont marriage (that I'm aware of) to challenge another state’s laws yet – but I’m sure that it’s coming.
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act took care of that one too:

quote:
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."


Posts: 450 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
18th century Mormons???
Joseph Smith was born in 1805 and first began having visions in 1819. Has someone already commented on this strange statement, and I just missed it?

Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But the point is that the Mass. Court found that the state does not have the right to restrict legal marriage to any given subset – you can’t use gender in the description. If it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to a specific gender combination, than it logically follows that it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to a specific numeric combination, or the number of legal marriages that any individual can be part of for that matter. That’s the problem with expecting the courts to define what marriage is.
That is hillarious. You are saying that if gender is not limited, the number is logically not limited? You are saying that number is equal to gender? Are you joking? Eqplain that to an insurance agent, a divorce lawyer, a tax consultant, or a local Surrogate.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and is anyone keeping up with the NJ governor, Jim McGreedy, and his possibly passing a legislation allowing legal recognition of same-sex partners?
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
This is terrible, if we start allowing polygamy and gay marriages, how long until we are allowing people to marry animals, or worse more than one animal or possibley different kinds of animals?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I don't like Britney's music all that much, but I'm going to buy her next album just so she'll keep making sexy videos. She's an adult American, she can do whatever she wants, it's not like she's gay or anything sick like that.

I've been married sixteen years, but I wouldn't presume to comment on other peoples relationships, sexual or otherwise. Unmarried virgins commenting on married sex, or any sex for that manor is a lot like Priests counseling couples on sex and marriage. Thank god we live in a country where sex and marriage aren't dictated by religion.

KE

[ January 16, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
d00de, we all saw that kiss, how can we know that she's not gay? Or bi? Or a gerbil-lubber?

I have heard it said that, "and on the 8th day, man created god and called it Government."

I have never been really comfortable with any involvement of the state in marriage in the first place. There are innumerable other things the state could do to stablize society and promote child rearing, why create, promote, and subsidize marriage and not other programs, particularly when religion is handling most aspects of marriage just fine?

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
18th century Mormons???
Joseph Smith was born in 1805 and first began having visions in 1819. Has someone already commented on this strange statement, and I just missed it?

Oops. I meant to type either "19th century" or "1800s" and kind of conflated the two. Good catch.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
locus is my new hero, because of this comment:
"'Have you ever heard of giving up freedom in order to achieve a greater freedom?'

Yeah ..it is Bush administration doublespeak for "bend over" at the airport."

i realize that was a page ago, but really, it deserves a 'simplyb salute for humor in the face of overzealous comments including the word freedom'. should be an oscar catagory, really.

this thread a) makes me want to hang out with zyne, b) inspires me to link to this essay and c) cements my 'ohmygodwhocares what people do behind closed doors' opinion about sex/marriage/etc.

good ol' biology makes two different terms for polygamy- guy with many ladies= polygyny, lady with many dudes= polyandry. both often tap into my favorite evolutionary concept, sexual selection. sexual selection is evolution driven by the preferential selection of a mate by the choosier sex... either due to defense of resources, health, good genes, etc. GENERALLY, sexually selected species are polygynous, because the female has greater investment in reproduction and thus is choosier, although in species such as jacanas, the female maintains a territory full of males that incubate her eggs for her. anyway, the premise of this is that one really stellar male (or female) tends to have the most matings, while others are left by the wayside. this doesn't SEEM to be the case for people so the whole thing honestly confuses me, though i totally respect the right to do it.

i should stop typing.

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
But you won't [Razz]

Seriously, it's not so much a "what people do behind closed doors" thing as a "when will people finally understand what individual human rights and liberties actually means?" thing. I don't like guns, but I understand the rights and the liberty of people to own them (though publically carrying them is another story), and I'd defend that through and through.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
tomato, to-mAh-to. i agree. ditto about the gun thing. i have been agreeing with you far too much.
Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"No, Dan, it is not the same thing, because the government does have the right to restrict marriage laws to being between two people. Allowing and accepting polygamy would require the law to be re-written in terms of the law, while allowing and accepting homosexual marriage would not."

As I understand it, the current law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. I fail to see how changing the numerical aspect of the law is more onerous than changing the gender combination. While I haven't read the Massachussetts decision, and therefore cannot say for certain if its logic is fully transferrable to the polygamy issue, I find your continual reliance on the "slippery slope" argument pretty tiresome. First off, the way our legal system works, it is very plausible that this decision could ultimately lead to even greater expansion of the definition of marriage, including toward polygamy. This is simply a fact of life that comes with our precedent-based common law system. You'd have to be totally ignorant of common law history or a total fool to claim that such a thing could not possibly occur. So when you say that this is a "slippery slope", I say that you're right; it is a slippery slope, just like our legal system. When people say that they fear legalized gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, they do so with good reason.

Posts: 7123 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As I understand it, the current law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. I fail to see how changing the numerical aspect of the law is more onerous than changing the gender combination.
[Eek!]

I'll give you the same reply I gave Doug: Explain that to an insurance agent, a divorce lawyer, a tax consultant, or a local Surrogate.

If you still think number is as easily changeable as making gender unspecified, then you are out of your mind or completely ignorant to how things work in this country.

quote:
When people say that they fear legalized gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, they do so with good reason.
Gee, the only reason I ever hear is circular logic, "homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy because homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy." Why don't you list the reasons? Didn't you and I already go through this discussion? Didn't I already list the multiple reasons why polygamy and homosexual marriage are two entirely different beasts? Am I going to have to find the thread, copy all of my posts to wordpad, and save them for every single time this ridiculous slippery slope pops back up?

Really, this thread is too much.

"The dog is barking, you should drive a blue car."

"I don't want a blue car, and the dog has nothing to do with my car."

"But you should drive a blue car, because the dog is barking."

"I like my car just fine, I do not want a blue car, and that dog cannot make me want a blue car. I am not driving a blue car."

"But the dog is barking, so you should drive a blue car."

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anonymous24
Member
Member # 1468

 - posted      Profile for Anonymous24   Email Anonymous24   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Regular marriage is between two and only two human beings. Homosexual marriage is between two and only two human beings. How will homosexual marriage, then, lead to polygamy and other supposed perversities?

Until you can prove to me, scientifically and with logic, that homosexual marriage is bad for society, I will support it.

Posts: 1226 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"If you still think number is as easily changeable as making gender unspecified, then you are out of your mind or completely ignorant to how things work in this country."

Your point is well taken; the logistics of implementing gay marriage are considerably less difficult than those for polygamous marriage. But it would not be the first time the government put civil rights issues ahead of expediency. The real barrier to polygamous marriage has always been the social and moral qualms with it, not any legal or economic concerns. When you ask the average person who is against polygamy why they don't approve of it, the legal costs are rarely at the top of the list. What I'm saying is, while problems of organization and law-making are certainly a barrier to polygamous marriage, they are not insurmountable, and once society determines that it is morally acceptable to be polygamous, it is likely that the law will follow, in spite of the mundane obstacles.

Now, as for gay marriage leading to polygamy. The definition of marriage has been the same for hundreds of years. The courts in Canada, and now the United States have altered that definition to include same sex couples. Their reasoning for doing so is based on the notion that forbidding gay marriage violates the rights of gay people to be equal to heterosexual people in every way, including having their relationships validated by the institution of marriage, and since gay marriage does not seem to do any harm to anyone, they do not see any compelling reason to forbid it anymore.

Polygamists can (and most certainly WILL) make a similar argument. Their relationships are arguably no less harmful inherently than gay relationships, (many people may disagree on this point, but then again, plenty of people disagree on the harmfulness of gay marriage; the simple fact is that in either case, there is no clear and obvious harm one can unequivocally point to) and not granting their relationships the recognition of marriage when you are willing to grant heterosexual and homosexual ones that privilege is clearly an example of inequality. Prior to the recent gay marriage decisions, this would have been an absurd argument; people would simply have said "marriage is between one man and one woman and cannot be changed". But that isn't true anymore; it can be changed, it HAS been changed. Once you open the definition of marriage up for revision and debate, you have to accept the inevitability that what can be revised once can be revised again. You can no longer say that marriage can't be changed because it is an immutable institution. It isn't immutable anymore. If polygamists can show that their lifestyle is not harmful, and can argue convincingly that not being allowed to validate their relationships through marriage is discriminatory, then there is no reason why marriage can't be changed to accomodate them. In this way, it is not really about gay marriage's similarity to polygamy, but simply the fact that gay marriage puts a dent in marriage's armor, making serious change in its definition possible.

Leto, for all your sarcasm and arrogance, you really haven't gone very far to prove your point, beyond just asserting your conclusion as if it is fact. My argument is not circular; I have outlined very clearly why I think gay marriage could very well lead to, or at least, make it easier for polygamous marriage to come to pass. Legal history is also on my side. Indeed, the common law has, over the past century very much been a slippery slope, with one precedent standing on top of other precedents, leading to what many believe to be absurd conclusions from relatively benign beginnings. Could anyone have predicted in 1932 that finding a company liable for a snail in a woman's ginger beer could lead to the tobacco lawsuits of the 1990's, and now the fast food lawsuits of the 2000's? It would seem to be absurd, yet it happened. If in 1932 I had told you that finding a duty of care between a ginger beer manufacturer and a customer for finding a decomposing snail in her drink would lead to people suing fast food companies for making them fat, you would have laughed at me and called my argument a slippery slope. But the rest is history. Finding that simple duty of care opened a floodgate that could not be closed.

Posts: 7123 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Could not be closed"? I beg to differ. The problem with America is exactly the fact that the system seems incapable of stopping any slippery slope, no matter how absurd. Americans, and I apologise for generalising here, seem to carry everything to extremes.

Now, as for fast food: As long as Micky Dee's insisted on selling its junk as "wholesome nutritous meals" and did not disclose the fat content, yes, it was liable, because consumption of McDonalds fare, at the same rate of eating regular food, will indeed cause the average person to gain significant weight.

But as for the slippery slope of liability: How come you don't hear of nearly as many ridiculous lawsuits in Europe, which has the same kind of consumer society? Because somehow, the Europeans know how to put hteir foot down. They are not slaves to quasi-logic.

Maybe its also that they don't have juries. The notion of being judged by ones peers is wonderful, but when a jury awards some imbecile millions for putting a hot coffee between her knees while starting the car - kinda makes you think. Maybe it should be used only for criminal case.

In any case, would you repeal the law that forces companies to list their ingredients just because it led to lawsuits against McD?

Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Leto, for all your sarcasm and arrogance, you really haven't gone very far to prove your point, beyond just asserting your conclusion as if it is fact.
Because I have done it in-depth—with you, even—in another thread discussing this very same thing. That you are ignoring what I've already said in the other thread (must I constantly repeat myself?) is your problem, and you are making a circular argument. You have provided no "proof" that there is a legal historic precedent. The logistics between the two are the reason they cannot be legally used as similar arguments, despite the fact that many MORONS will TRY to make it. Those who TRY to make it will, as people have ALREADY done, FAIL.

If you want to read more on what I've already said over and over and over and over and over, and stuff I've already said to you, jason, then go find the other thread. I can't believe you're being so ignorant as to claim I haven't already made clear to you and done anything to prove my point. The logistics make the two different, the only legal argument is a slippery slope, and it has already failed in legal arguments as not being similar. The foodstuff arguments had far more compelling evidence than just the slippery slope, as have other famous legal battles using a prior argument: think civil rights. This homosexual/polygamy thing has only the slippery slope as the argument, and you have done jack to show me anything but a circular reasoning for it.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Now I remember why I disliked arguing with you the last time. Alright, fine whatever, seeya later.
Posts: 7123 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Uhhh... Leto?

Jasonr is right. You are being arrogant.

You keep arguing about technicalities of the law. You appear to be taking the position that your argument should be enough to end the discussion, yet you keep ignoring what others have told you; no matter how much you argue your point it will not keep polygamists from _wanting their rights too_.

Tell them that the laws are built around a _couple_ all you want. They won't care. Nor will it make them shut up. Tell them that insurance is built around a union of only two, and guess what, they still ain't gonna care.

And, furthermore, it is hardly justification for _not changing a law_. You make it sound like it is an insurmountable problem. It is not. Laws have been changed before. They will change again.

Ed.

Posts: 3485 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I'm watching "The Undefeated" with John Wayne and Rock Hudson, and trying not to cry. IMO the Civil War is about the saddest thing that ever happened to our country. But I digress. The reason I'm writing is it struck me watching Rock Hudson, who was a famous, powerful, successful man, who could have had any woman he wanted, that it didn't make much sense, especially in that day and age, that he would choose to be homosexual? Seems proof to me that he didn't have a choice.

KE

PS, I also can't help but wonder if John Wayne knew?

[ January 17, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No, Ed, I've been through this circular discussion with jason before, and jason is trying to use the same things I already addressed, and I'm in no mood to constantly repeat myself. Perhaps I'll compile a whole long post, put it in its own thread, then bookmark it for the next six hundred times this stupid topic comes up. I haven't decided yet. I seriously don't think anyone who has the ridiculous opinion that the two are comparable are going to change their outlook on it, so I hardly see the worth of doing it.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I happen to have the ridiculous opinion that the two are comparable and you have as yet to refute my points. In this thread, or in the prior thread where we discussed it.

Shall I, too, compile a whole long post, put it in its own thread, then bookmark it for the next six hundred times this stupid topic comes up?

I think you need to accept that we all do not agree and that this topic will continue to come up.

Ed.

Posts: 3485 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Please, feel free to type up your all-inclusive post.

I'm willing to accept that people hold different opinions on the matter. I also reserve the right to know that those who hold the opposite opinion on this matter are simply incorrect. [Smile]

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Which is why you are being called arrogant.

Ed and Jason have made counter points which you haven't adequately addressed.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Leto, Ed is right, you need to accept the fact that there are people who equate gay marriage with homosexual marriage and bestiality, then there are sane, logical people who believe in individual freedom and the American way. Until you accept these facts, there's really nothing I can do for you.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I _DO_ hope you are being sarcastic, KE. That's not what I said at all.

'Cause if you ain't baitin' Leto, you sure as hell are baitin' me. [Smile]

Ed.

Posts: 3485 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I was being sarcastic, but definitely towards you or anyone that equates homosexual marriage to polygamy or that is against homosexual marriage. [Razz]

KE

edited to ad smiley face because I personally have nothing against Ed, just his position.

Hey Ed, want to buy a lawn mower? [Wink]

[ January 17, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1