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

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The "Polygamy" Slippery Slope (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: The "Polygamy" Slippery Slope
ColdZer0
Member
Member # 1745

 - posted      Profile for ColdZer0   Email ColdZer0   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Poligamy probably wouldn't be that detrimental to child rearing as long as all parents had equal levels of respect and were consistently there for the child to grow up with.

Weekend "fishing" trips shouldn't count.

Posts: 12 | Registered: May 2004  |  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   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Kentuckian
quote:
I still haven't had anybody tell me what's wrong with consenting adult polygamy other than vague references to legal difficulties.

Anyone? EDanall, you seem against it, perhaps you could elaborate?

I'm not against it, per se, Kentuckian. I'm merely amused by many who support gay marriage but argue against polygamy is if it were the greater evil.

Personally, I would prefer that marriage be left "as-is", but recognize that if we legalize gay marriage, we must legalize polygamy.

Ed.

Posts: 3497 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which is, of course, why I'm for the elimination of marriage and the institution of multi-personal corporations.
Posts: 20892 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yet somehow I think we would lose something indefinable if, when you got down on your knee before your beloved and presented the ring, you would ask, “Will you incorporate with me?” [Wink]
Posts: 7981 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I agree with Kentuckian and msquared (Its not for me but I don't see anything wrong with allowing others to do it).

And I also agree with Kentuckian's request to keep this thread on the original topic of "What's wrong with it" rather than "should it be legal" or why there are legal problems with it.

Posts: 1718 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FIJC, Thank you for the informatyive links to Rabbi Gershoms rulings (saved me from digging them up myself) and especially for providing the Jewish approach to the context of Abraham, and Jacobs Polygamous marriages.

Even more so thank you for the links on China and Taiwan. I didn't know that it was formally illegal and I am always glad to learn new things. It still seems though that Polygamy is practiced and acceptable in China (for rich or influential people) whether it is legal or not.

The people I know in the west who come from such marriages do not seem to think there is anything inherently wrong with them but most of those I know I know are NOT looking to be part of one themselves. I would be interested in elaboration on why that might be.

I am sure there are horror stories of all kinds about the evils of polygamy, but are they inherently worse that the Snow White or Cinderella fables that were written in the context of a monogamous culture?

What about the classic "love triangle" conflicts where the two people of the same sex also happen to be good freinds. Is some of the suffering introduced by that situation artificially introduced by the monogamy requirement?

Posts: 1718 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
skyclad
Member
Member # 1740

 - posted      Profile for skyclad   Email skyclad   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I still haven't had anybody tell me what's wrong with consenting adult polygamy other than vague references to legal difficulties."

As far as marriag goes, what issue is there other than legality? Right? Wrong? Obviously, any consenting adult has the right to live and have sex with any other consenting adult, be they married or not. That's over and done with, so right and wrong are basically a "mooo" point. Also, lest we forget, there is no requirement of a sexual relationship in order to get married, so please, lets stop thinking of polygamy in terms of right and wrong.

We are in the habit of thinking that way because as the current system of marriage stands, most people who chose to get married are sexually attracted to eachother. I'm in the Navy, and believe you me, that is not always the case. I've seen "couples" get married because to her, health insurance looked mighty tasty, and to him, an extra $1100 a month housing allowance was too good to pass up. And nobody ever gets married just to gain US citizenship...

So it's a legal issue, so what. So what if 10 years from now you're "married" into a street gang? Yeah, no tough street punk would ever marry his hommies... but if Paco has a job with health benefits, that could come in handy the next time i get sick, or stabbed. It's not like I'm gay or anything. And if he gets layed off, well, i'd count as another dependent to social security/dissability/(insert government program here)?/etc.

And as a small business owner, what if you could marry all new employees into the company (of corse they'd sign an air tight prenup first)? Much less paper work. No expensive company healthcare to pay for. All pay issues are taken care of inside the family. If things don't work out, divorce them from the company.

Silly ideas huh. Stupid right, of corse... to people who've been raised in a mother/father home and society. What about to people who've been raised by 3 daddies and 7 mommies? How about 2 mommies and 8 daddies?

So what. Who cares if gangs and small companies want to get hitched? Well, why not medium and large sized companies? After all, in a marriage system where mutual consent is the only requirement, who is to say how big is too big for a family? And with all the problems and volatility in a two person marriage, just imagine what it could be like with more people in on the fun. Of corse the government would have to enact new laws to compensate for the shift in the US social structure, specifically in the family.

You think privacy in the home is being invaded now? You ain't seen nothing yet!

Polygamy is alright when a small minority do it, and there is no legal advantage or sanction. However, if that changes, things will get mighty interesting.

"Personally, I would prefer that marriage be left "as-is", but recognize that if we legalize gay marriage, we must legalize polygamy."

If consent is all that's needed between two people of any sex, then you CAN'T tell me that Tina, Jody, Melissa, and Rob aren't allowed to get married too. That'd be hypocritical, and small minded. Plus we love eachother, and we can take even better care of the little ones, all twelve of them!

Posts: 12 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grendel
Member
Member # 1693

 - posted      Profile for Grendel   Email Grendel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Skyclad brings up good points, which I think others have also shown: The system can be misused and stretched out of reason if we are not careful. So, for those who think there is nothing wrong with it, the issue becomes not one of right/wrong but definition.

I'll expand on a statement I made in an earlier post: I see nothing wrong with allowing more than two NATURAL people to "marry" (for those that do not know, a corporation can be a LEGAL person (ie, for purposes of law), not a natural one). I do not insist that the "institution of marriage" be expanded to include these new family types. I DO insist that IF marriage does not include them that these unions are allowed the same legal rights and protections as marriage. There would also need to be complimentary changes made to some policies that affect marriage and families, but policies would need to be considered (or challenged) on a case-by-case basis.

Posts: 249 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kentuckian
Member
Member # 101

 - posted      Profile for Kentuckian   Email Kentuckian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, skyclad, those may be the most interesting reasons I've heard yet... Your legal reasons aren't vague.

So basically, you're thinking is that people could use plural marriages for a variety of reasons other than to be in love and raise kids and that this could be a problem for society as a whole?

Interesting. I will think about that one.

Posts: 1430 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's over and done with, so right and wrong are basically a "mooo" point.
A mooo point?

Yeah, you know, a cows opinion. It's mooo, it doesn't matter.

LetterRip (Who has seen the occassional episode of Friends...)

Posts: 7822 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Arileth
Member
Member # 1574

 - posted      Profile for Arileth   Email Arileth   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Few enough people, now adays, know how to build and maintain a lasting Legal Union (I don't even know whether to call it marriage or what any more) between two consenting adults. Does anybody realy think adding more people to the mix will make things anything but harder and more complex? Lets just get rid of legal unions of any flavor, and just grow our kids in test tubes, make them all wards of the state. That way we're all equally responsible for their upbringing.
Very "Brave New World" esk... I hope your joking
Posts: 25 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's safe to assume so, yes. [Smile]
Posts: 20892 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
skyclad
Member
Member # 1740

 - posted      Profile for skyclad   Email skyclad   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yep. but it's in bad taste. so i took it off. hope i didn't offend any body.
Posts: 12 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
OSC wrote: So whenever somebody starts warning you about the "slippery slope," you can be sure of this: They are defending an extremist position, and the only way they can persuade people not to return to the middle ground is by pretending that the opposite extreme is the only alternative.
Bravo. First intelligent political thing I've heard from OSC in a while. Like I've said, the "slippery slope" argument regarding gay marriage sliding to polygamy (as I think this thread has shown) truly has nothing to do with polygamy. It is an excuse to oppose gay marriage, driven by a lack of real, rational, objective arguments in favor of fear-mongering and a constant refrain of "Tradition!" in true Tevye style.

Ironically, I highly doubt OSC would be willing to put his money where his mouth is and actually apply this principle to his own hawkish slippery slopes, or to his own attitudes on gay marriage. Just read his past writings on the subject. They're so fallacy-laden, it's pathetic.

[ May 13, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drewmie, I think that's a fair point. OSC's recent essay Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization argues that gay marriage is a step in the process of eroding the institution of marriage, which process will ultimately cause our entire society to self-destruct. While he doesn't talk about polygamy (or people marrying their cats and such nonsense), this still strikes me as a slippery slope argument. Hasn't OSC contradicted himself?
Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Denelian
Member
Member # 531

 - posted      Profile for Denelian   Email Denelian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
so many things to write, so little time...

lets see. the first thing i want to bring up, is the gay marriage thing and how it relates. but a side-note - i was in a three sided argument with one of my sisters and my dad about gay-marriage. well, mostly it was Leia and I, and then my dad jumped all over Leia about her assertation that gay marriage destroys the "sanctity" of "regular marriage". basicly, he said that if gay marriage destroyed his marriage, then he guessed that his marriage wasn't all that to begin with.

okay, back to topic. under the idea of "freedom of religion" (or, according the the constitution, the idea that the government cannot impose religion) outlawing gay marriage is illegal because there are churches that allow it. and so long as there are churches or other religious institutions that allow a form of marriage, we are theoreticly required to uphold them - otherwise, the government is forcing a religious view on us. see?
poly-whatever-marriage is the same thing. it has bothered me for a long time that if a Muslim group moved here, three women were divorced. now, i AM a feminist and don't like the general attitudes towards women in the ME - but there are women who like having three co-wives. and i know lots of poly-whatever people, and while personally i am into monogomy, these people are happy AND have more money. go figure.

reasons to NOT allow poly are mostly what i call NIMBY reasons (not in my backyard!!!) and are spurious. the only good reason i can think of has to do with children - legally, i think, all children from this type of marriage would be related, no? so then if sharon and tommy, no genetic link, are "brother and sister" but fall in love, its incest. so i think that we would have to learn to incorperate more genetic testing... (i am just reminded of "The Brady Bunch", you see [Wink]

Posts: 1139 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if there are organized religions that endorse gay marriage (which is news to me), the First Amendment does not require government to alter its laws to uphold all the teachings of every religion. My religion may approve of infanticide or wife-beating or nudity, but it doesn't mean there can't be laws against murder or battery or indecent exposure. Whether each of those laws is a good policy is, of course, another matter.
Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is not a question of "allow." This is a matter of legal recognition by the state. Traditional and religious marriage are irrelevant to the discussion. Legal marriage is the issue. Specifically, the paranoid slippery slope that recognizing gay marriage forces us to recognize polygamy.

[ May 13, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 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   Reply With Quote 
@ Denelian

quote:
reasons to NOT allow poly are mostly what i call NIMBY reasons (not in my backyard!!!) and are spurious. the only good reason i can think of has to do with children - legally, i think, all children from this type of marriage would be related, no?
But that same rational can be applied to Gay Marriage too, and, in fact, is exactly why many don't want it.

You second point, BTW, is no more or less true for traditional marriage.

@ Drewmie

quote:
This is not a question of "allow." This is a matter of legal recognition by the state. Traditional and religious marriage are irrelevant to the discussion. Legal marriage is the issue.
Wrong. Legal marriage exists because traditional marriage exists. One is a consequence of the other. But for tradition, there would be no laws. That makes it relevant, no matter how much you wanna believe otherwise.

Ed.

Posts: 3497 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Denelian:

Regarding the women in the Middle East who like having co-wives: Why do you think that these women are happy as opposed to just thinking they're happy?

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually confused by the difference between being happy and thinking you're happy.
Posts: 20892 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
EDanall wrote: Wrong. Legal marriage exists because traditional marriage exists. One is a consequence of the other. But for tradition, there would be no laws.
I agree. I'm not pretending there isn't a connection. I'm just not in la-la land where they are the same, where every little traditional attitude about marriage is considered legally binding. "The Rule of Law," by definition, requires actual laws. Trying to impose tradition WHEN IT'S NOT IN THE LAW (or when it's even contrary to the law) is wrong.

Even you and Bush believes this, because you're (1) upset at "activist" judges who make decisions not codified, and (2) want to codify a more strict definition of marriage. Why? Because you believe THE LAW is the relevant issue here. And so do I.

Traditional marriage definitely has a connection to legal marriage. That doesn't make it relevant to the discussion.

[ May 14, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I grant you that traditional attitudes about marriage are not legally binding, but that does not make them irrelevant.

Under the status quo, our legal system pretty much follow society's traditional attitudes about marriage. Since the institution of marriage is such a fundamental one, we should alter the nature of that institution only after very careful reflection. I agree with the President that this decision should be made by society as a whole, not by a few judges.

And if and when the issue is finally put to a vote, I will vote, based opon my careful reflection considering all the arguments about how gay marriage might affect our society, that gay marriage should be . . . legal.

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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   Reply With Quote 
@ Drewmie

But your not considering the converse, Drewmie. What becomes law becomes tradition. Tradition is, in effect, "How we've always done things." Law is "how we will do things." Do it long enough, and it becomes "how we've always done things."

In codifying Gay Marriage, you are, in effect, allowing a new tradition.

But none of this does anything to prove that polygamy is worse, and therefore, less allowable, than gay marriage.

@ TomDavidson

He's talking about the difference between being happy and _pretending_ you're happy. Between reality and illusion.

@ Omega M

I'm afraid no government has the right to tell a person "you can't do that because you only think it makes you happy."

Ed.

Fixed attribution.

[ May 14, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3497 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
EDanall wrote: But none of this does anything to prove that polygamy is worse, and therefore, less allowable, than gay marriage.
I never said it was. I simply said that they are apples and oranges, since the argument for gay marriage doesn't work for polygamy. Here it is again:
quote:
Drewmie wrote: The burden is on the polygamist to prove that the law is unconstitutionally discriminatory. It is not, because discrimination on the basis of "population size" is not unconstitutional. Discrimination on gender or sexual orientation OTOH are sometimes considered unconstitutional (though not on a "strict scrutiny" level of course) when the discrimination is not reasonably applicable. This is why legal gay marriage will probably stand, but we will never legally force churches to stop discriminating.

Polygamy has no such protection, because its basis is not gender or sexual orientation. It is, for lack of a better term, marital gluttony. Unlike gay marriage, it seeks not to have the same recognition, but to have more recognition.

You responded by completely missing the point:
quote:
EDanall wrote: Oh! I understand now! So, in a Polygamous Marriage, none of the participants have either gender or sexual orientation? Thanks for clearing that up! I was confused!
Please. Of course they have gender and sexual orientation. But they are not fighting against discrimination based on it. It is based on numbers, which doesn't warrant near the judicial scrutiny that gender or sexual orientation discrimination does. In fact, the only protected liberty I know of regarding sheer numbers is the right to congregate, which would be a laughable stretch if you tried to apply it to legally recognizing polygamy.
Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 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   Reply With Quote 
I didn't miss it, Drewmie, you're point is irrelevant.

Marriage has two rules: 2 people; one man and one woman.

You're arguing that it's OK to break the Man and woman rule but not OK to break the 2 people rule.

But if we break the man and woman rule, polygamists are gonna argue that they should be allowed to break the two person rule. And there is no justifiable reason you can offer them to tell them they can't. You are being selective in determining which rule can be broken.

The explanation that you are currently offering amounts to discrimination on the basis of lifestyle, which is just as valid as gender or sexual orientation. Which means you are still being selective.

Ed.

Posts: 3497 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
EDanall wrote: The explanation that you are currently offering amounts to discrimination on the basis of lifestyle, which is just as valid as gender or sexual orientation.
You may believe that, but it's not the law. How many laws and successful cases are there regarding gender discrimination? Tons. How many laws and successful cases are there regarding group size discrimination? I've never heard of a successful lawsuit against a restaurant because they wouldn't allow more people in over a certain number. Nor have I heard of a successful lawsuit against a company because they only hired five workers instead of ten.

You honestly think that group size discrimination should require as much scrutiny as gender or sexual orientation?

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But if we break the man and woman rule, polygamists are gonna argue that they should be allowed to break the two person rule. And there is no justifiable reason you can offer them to tell them they can't. You are being selective in determining which rule can be broken.
But we all ready broke the "two people of the same race" rule years ago, and there is no justifiable reason why that doesn't mean two people of the opposite gender can't marry. At least, that is what some said at the time.

Polygamy and same-sex marriages are different, just as same-sex marriages and conventional marriages are different. So there can be a justifiable reason based on those differences. Whether it is an adequate reason is another question. Perhaps, based on justice, fairness and what is right, we will have to allow polygamy. But you don't deny people what is just, fair and right just because you fear further consequences. Otherwise, you can justify denying people anything.

Posts: 7981 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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   Reply With Quote 
@ Drewmie

quote:
You may believe that, but it's not the law. How many laws and successful cases are there regarding gender discrimination? Tons. How many laws and successful cases are there regarding group size discrimination? I've never heard of a successful lawsuit against a restaurant because they wouldn't allow more people in over a certain number. Nor have I heard of a successful lawsuit against a company because they only hired five workers instead of ten.

You honestly think that group size discrimination should require as much scrutiny as gender or sexual orientation?

No, I genuinely believe that the argument you offer is a Red herring.

Laws concerning "the right to gather" have nothing to do with a person's right to marry.

@ Wayword Son

quote:
But we all ready broke the "two people of the same race" rule years ago, and there is no justifiable reason why that doesn't mean two people of the opposite gender can't marry. At least, that is what some said at the time.
You are confusing the desires of some with the rules of Marriage. One man and one woman, and never was race part of the specification.

quote:
Perhaps, based on justice, fairness and what is right, we will have to allow polygamy.
And that is exactly the reason why polygamists will demand their right. And if you cannot provide them a valid legal reason, they will have that right.

Ed.

Posts: 3497 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"One man and one woman, and never was race part of the specification."

I'm afraid that this is historically untrue.

Posts: 20892 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You are confusing the desires of some with the rules of Marriage. One man and one woman, and never was race part of the specification.
Who says? Where are the rules written? Certainly not the Bible, since it appears that the Good Book allows polygamy. So where do you get your "rules?"

quote:


quote:
Perhaps, based on justice, fairness and what is right, we will have to allow polygamy.
And that is exactly the reason why polygamists will demand their right. And if you cannot provide them a valid legal reason, they will have that right.
If it is fair, just and right, who would oppose granting them the legal right?
Posts: 7981 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
EDanall wrote: No, I genuinely believe that the argument you offer is a Red herring. Laws concerning "the right to gather" have nothing to do with a person's right to marry.
(sigh) And if you'd actually read my posts, I specifically said that it has nothing to do with it. My point is that restricting gender discrimination has a precedent, as does restricting sexual orientation discrimination:
quote:
Since 1974, federal law (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10)) has been interpreted to prohibit discrimination against federal employees on the basis of sexual orientation. While containing no specific reference to sexual orientation, the statute has been uniformly interpreted to prohibit discrimination. In fact, current Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, an appointee of President Bush, concluded more than 20 years ago that, "it is improper to deny employment to or to terminate anyone on the basis of sexual preference or conduct that does not adversely affect job performance."
So, on what basis will polygamists demand marriage? AS YOU SAID, they would be stupid to try and use congregation rights. So on what basis? Any precedents? Anyone? Bueller?

I think those against gay marriage COULD argue that such prohibitions against gay discrimination do not require the scrutiny needed to apply it to marriage. Fine. Reasonable argument. But let's not pretend polygamy has even near that level of scrutiny.

[ May 19, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 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   Reply With Quote 
@ TomDavidson

Then _show me_, Tom, don't tell me.

@ Wayward Son

I get them from the same place that everyone else gets it, tradition. Marriage:
quote:
Marriage is a relationship that usually forms the nucleus of a family and is generally considered to be the union of two people, usually (but not always), a man and a woman. Since the latter decades of the 20th century, alternative definitions have come to the fore.
That they mention "not always" and "alternative definitions have come to the fore" has to do with current events and not with tradition.

@ Drewmie

Double sigh...

I've read your threads, Drewmie, and you keep using an irrelevant argument. Legal precedent, until recently, has been to deny both.

Comparing Employment to Marriage is also erroneous. Employers have the right to hire based on qualification. Marriage has qualifications too: two people; one man, one woman. Change the one man, one woman rule, and you set the precedent for changing the two person rule.

Especially if you consider that Polygamy has greater precedent that Gay Marriage.

Ed.

Posts: 3497 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
EDanall wrote: Change the one man, one woman rule, and you set the precedent for changing the two person rule.
This is a false dilemma that pretends changing the man-woman "rule" must be combined with changing the two person rule. Remove the word "one" from your statement, and it becomes absurd:
quote:
Change the [man with] woman rule, and you set the precedent for changing the two person rule.
See? They are two different things. Nothing in changing the gender requirement changes the population requirement.

[ May 19, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Regarding "qualifications," who decides what qualifications are reasonable? A company can decide on its own as long as it fits within legal scrutiny. Same goes for defining marriage. You claim it is "one man, one woman." All I'm saying is that there are plenty of legal precedents for challenging the gender requirement. There are none for challenging the population requirement.
Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I get them from the same place that everyone else gets it, tradition.
But for a while, tradition did dictate that only people of the same race could marry. At that time, it was part of the "rules of marriage." Certainly you could point to some time before the tradition was established, and the time after it was established, to show that it was not written in stone. But the same can be done for the tradition of polygamy, which is still the tradition in some parts of the world.

Your "rule" of tradition is nothing but an arbitrary guideline.

Posts: 7981 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply 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