Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage, what say u Too Hot Conservatives?

[WESGATORS]

So if somebody renting a house now says "married couples only" you are ok with them changing it to "heterosexual married couples only" once homosexual marriages are passed? Because I think that is the next issue that will come up.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

So if somebody renting a house now says "married couples only" you are ok with them changing it to "heterosexual married couples only" once homosexual marriages are passed? Because I think that is the next issue that will come up.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Well, the answer to that question is, how do you plan on enforcing your rule? Self-help, the courts? If it is the latter, then you have state action. The former, and it's a problem for you.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I've already addressed this part; if a woman is involved in such a relationship, she's going to have more rights if she enters into a contract that treats her as a "wife." The contract is more empowering for her, not less empowering. Do you disagree?



Your basis for comparison is off; you are comparing a married polygamist woman with a married monogamist woman. The true comparison would be in comparing a married polygamist woman with an unmarried woman in a similar relationship. You wouldn't argue that a homosexual male is in a weaker position for starting a family if he's in a homosexual relationship than if he's in a heterosexual relationship...yes, it's true, but the basis for comparison should be a homosexual male in a contractual relationship vs. a homosexual male not in a contractual relationship. The contract is empowering.

And as I said, the same argument you present holds for children. The more children you have the more you weaken their legal standing with respect to making decisions about the family once the parents are deceased. The bottom line is that these things can be and typically are addressed. That problems come up is not an excuse to prohibit the behavior for relationships any more than it is for the production of offspring. People have a right to be in whatever kind of relationship they want provided that the relationship is not in violation of another's rights.



And of course it should be noted that a legal contract can and does exist for addressing this without the requirement of marriage.



How would you address this with multiple kids? Same logic applies.



You are dramatizing these "hurdles" in an attempt to separate the right to a homosexual marriage from the right to a polygamous marriage. The bottom line is that if you are seeking a non-discrimination policy, then you must logically include polygamy in the mix. That there are more "hurdles" is irrelevant (again, see additional hurdles of having multiple children). Hurdles don't equate to the loss of rights.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Bring on polygamy! Now I'll just have to talk my wife into it...

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

Well, the answer to that question is, how do you plan on enforcing your rule? Self-help, the courts? If it is the latter, then you have state action. The former, and it's a problem for you.

I'm not sure I follow you. The enforcement of the rule would be just as it is now. The term "heterosexual" will have been added where before it was implied.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

This is very well stated. I myself advanced that argument exhaustively until it occurred to me that I was expending heavy intellectual labor to rationalize the exclusion of homosexual unions from the term "marriage" when said institution has assumed a character quite distinct from its earliest imperatives (some might even say a selfish character). Why fight so hard to keep people outside of social sanction, when for the most part all they are interested in is quietly living their lives with their partner in a way that is above board, and consonant with a stable and secure family structure (especially if children are being brought into the union), i.e., the usual social expectations enjoyed by heterosexuals. People are people, and some of the best people I know are gay. It's time to just get over it and realize that gay marriage is an issue of discrimination.

+1

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

It's always been an issue of discrimination, but calling it that doesn't make it immoral.

People should be free to define their relationship however they want, and people should be free to respect that relationship or not respect that relationship however they want. I think the only issue that comes up is whether or not the government should be permitted to discriminate, and the obvious answer there is to just remove them from the equation and let people define their status with the government based on other contracts that are accessible to everybody.

Why should non-married couples be discriminated against regardless of their sexuality?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

How are they discriminated against, and how is that not a different issue?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Yeah AzCat, I second that request. "Right of survivorship, power of attorney, visitation rights" - why would marriage contracts involving these things logically fail if not between "exactly two people," as you said?

Survivorship? One dies, inheritance or property ownership divided 50/50 between remaining two unless designated otherwise in a will. Two die, the last one gets it all.

Power of Attorney? That's never automatic anyway. It's a prepared legal document. If I'm in a 3-way marriage and want to have a Power of Attorney in case of incapacity or whatever, I just designate it to whichever one of the two partners I want. Or some rights can be assigned to one and others to the other. Easy.

Visitation rights? That's the easiest one. Both other spouses get the rights. There's only room for one visitor at a time, you say? Okay. Ummm...take turns?

So now what's to stop the slide down this slippery slope toward polygamy rights for all?

Because the arguement is about equal protection, not redefining marriage. If you want to advocate for polygamy, help yourself, but that is not a right that anyone in America already has, unlike monogamous marriages.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

AzCat, so you are ok with polygamy as long as these details are spelled out in advance? These problems already exist in the case of inheritance for children when there is no will specified (similar for power of attorney)...and yet we continue to let people have multiple children.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Are you in favor polygamy? Good luck because I don't think you'll win that one.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I agree with this; the problem I have is that I don't think the government should force people to agree with this line of thinking. If somebody wants to not respect a homosexual marriage, then that should be their right to not have to respect that. So say you allow "homosexual marriage" then the next problem that's going to come up is whether or not a business entity may make exclusive rules that favor heterosexual marriage vs. any other type of relationship...will this be a problem?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

The government would not be forcing anyone to agree with anything, but only guaranteeing equal protection for all citizens. If you don't like it you don't have to marry someone of the same sex, but you are not therefore entitled to deny them rights of other Americans. It's the same principle as racial equality.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Row6

Are you in favor polygamy? Good luck because I don't think you'll win that one.

Personally, no, but I think one has the right to be with as many women and men as they want. Polygamy won't gain approval until three dudes want to get married.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Row6

The government would not be forcing anyone to agree with anything, but only guaranteeing equal protection for all citizens. If you don't like it you don't have to marry someone of the same sex, but you are not therefore entitled to deny them rights of other Americans. It's the same principle as racial equality.

See the proposed issue that I mentioned above.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Row6

How are they discriminated against, and how is that not a different issue?

We've been through this before, a different approach to the same problem. You don't like the approach because you think it complicates things to break them down into various contracts that can include few or many components of what is generally assumed to be a part of marriage. I prefer the approach because it offers more options to more people.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

The bottom line is that if you are seeking a non-discrimination policy, then you must logically include polygamy in the mix. That there are more "hurdles" is irrelevant (again, see additional hurdles of having multiple children). Hurdles don't equate to the loss of rights.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I agree of with this. If this issue truly is discrimination then it is only logical to bring everyone under the same marriage laws.

I get the feeling gay marriage isn't even about discrimination, to me it appears to be more about a fight for social validity and main stream acceptance of the gay lifestyle....but that doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "gays are being persecuted" now does it.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I've already addressed this part; if a woman is involved in such a relationship, she's going to have more rights if she enters into a contract that treats her as a "wife." The contract is more empowering for her, not less empowering. Do you disagree?

My point is polygamy tends to foster misogynist environments. Sure, the married woman has more rights than the non-married, but look at polygamous societies. They tend to, as a rule, treat women unequal. Again, take a look at the FCLDS. The married women on the FCLDS do have more rights than the unmarried, but the society is so supressive of women's rights, de facto, the women have no rights. Again, polygamy fostering this sort of society doesn't bode well for a future polygamous movement.

Your basis for comparison is off; you are comparing a married polygamist woman with a married monogamist woman. The true comparison would be in comparing a married polygamist woman with an unmarried woman in a similar relationship. You wouldn't argue that a homosexual male is in a weaker position for starting a family if he's in a homosexual relationship than if he's in a heterosexual relationship...yes, it's true, but the basis for comparison should be a homosexual male in a contractual relationship vs. a homosexual male not in a contractual relationship. The contract is empowering.

And as I said, the same argument you present holds for children. The more children you have the more you weaken their legal standing with respect to making decisions about the family once the parents are deceased. The bottom line is that these things can be and typically are addressed. That problems come up is not an excuse to prohibit the behavior for relationships any more than it is for the production of offspring. People have a right to be in whatever kind of relationship they want provided that the relationship is not in violation of another's rights.

My basis for comparison is not off; you just don't seem to like it. I looked at three permutations of Schiavo. The case as presented, the case if the couple were gay, and the case if the couple were polygamous and Terri had multiple spouses. And I agree the argument I presented hold for children, but then children have less legal standing as spouse! Which is my entire argument. Spouse is exalted in legal standings, and spouse has the most rights and responsibilities. Allowing for multiple spouses would demote the familial relationship of spouse down to the level of child(ren). Allowing gays to marry, on the other hand, does not.

And of course it should be noted that a legal contract can and does exist for addressing this without the requirement of marriage.

Of course it does. But it doesn't allow the couple to be considered legally married. Which is what we are talking about re: gay marriage. Gay couples can already get almost all the same rights and responsibilities as married, hetero couples through legal means. But nothing as quick and easy as a marriage license. Not to mention, couples that sign other legal documents but not a marriage license aren't considered "married."

How would you address this with multiple kids? Same logic applies.

Again, child is a different familial relationship than spouse, with different rights and responsibilities. The law already allows for multiple children and already has laws and ways for resolution in place if and when conflict arises. Spouse is different, because as stated, the law only allows for one spouse at a time. The logic is, if we allow for multiple spouses, in legal terms, spouse loses some standings and yes, becomes more like children in terms of rights and responsibilities. That's the legal argument for now allowing multiple spouses.

You are dramatizing these "hurdles" in an attempt to separate the right to a homosexual marriage from the right to a polygamous marriage. The bottom line is that if you are seeking a non-discrimination policy, then you must logically include polygamy in the mix. That there are more "hurdles" is irrelevant (again, see additional hurdles of having multiple children). Hurdles don't equate to the loss of rights.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

The hurdles are not irrelevant. Societies that allow multiple children don't tend to gravitate towards being misogynistic, anti-women. In fact, the opposite is true (see China, which limits the number of children). In contrast, societies that allow polygamy tend to be very suppressive of women. If a movement needs someone to champion the cause, plenty of gays and gay couples in society that are well respected and successful. Not too many polygamists fit this bill, and members of the FCLDS aren't going to garner much support for their cause.

And the other hurdle? Again, I personally don't have a problem with polygamy, but can and am making the case that spouse should retain its exalted position as legally strongest familial position. And this is maintained partly because of exclusivity--a person can have only one spouse at a time. Remove said exclusivity, and spouse's legal standing does drop to that more of a child. And I think a case can be made that spouse needs to remain it's position and exclusivity.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by 108

you don't have to support of believe in gay marriage to know that they have the constitutional right to marry

there is no substantive legal argument to be made here that should allow our constitution to discriminate here

The legal argument is that marriage as an institution is unconstitutional

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Personally, no, but I think one has the right to be with as many women and men as they want. Polygamy won't gain approval until three dudes want to get married.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

The question isn't whether polygamists have the right to "be with" but whether the state recognizes their being with. Presently no one in America is granted that recognition.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

We've been through this before, a different approach to the same problem. You don't like the approach because you think it complicates things to break them down into various contracts that can include few or many components of what is generally assumed to be a part of marriage. I prefer the approach because it offers more options to more people.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

That's about right, although I also acknowledge that marriage and the laws surrounding it predates the government and is an ancient arrangement present in all cultures in various forms and is many ways one of the few necessary building blocks of it. Saying the government shouldn't recognize it is would be like saying government shouldn't recognize property or families.

[Matthanuf06]

The solution is simple and is already a part of American law. We protect contracts, in theory at least. The government should not infringe on the right of two, there, or 10 voluntary adults on agreeing to and entering into a contract. It could be to sell sheep, get "married", or anything else. It shouldn't matter. Whether I "like" what you are doing should have no bearing, provided the contract is voluntary amongst all parties.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

The solution is simple and is already a part of American law. We protect contracts, in theory at least. The government should not infringe on the right of two, there, or 10 voluntary adults on agreeing to and entering into a contract. It could be to sell sheep, get "married", or anything else. It shouldn't matter. Whether I "like" what you are doing should have no bearing, provided the contract is voluntary amongst all parties.

What the government recognizes is the issue, not practices (In most states sodomy and other laws concerning sexual relations either no longer exist or are not enforced). Being married is a commonly accepted and understood arrangement between two adults which carries similarly commonly understood legal rights and responsibilities. Confusing this issue in ways which would require carrying your "contract" with you and having a lawyer sit in on transactions, in the interests of not offending a dwindling number of citizens - who are not so much motivated by broad minded acceptance of others life style choices, but conversely are intolerant of them - who wish to throw out the marriage baby with the bath water if they are no longer able to limit it as they wish is fortunately not going to happen, while including monogamous gays in that institution almost certainly will.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

So as wes alluded to, as long as logistical issues can be worked out you're fine with sliding right down that slippery slope into polygamy too. How far down can we slide before we hit your moral limits on legally sanctioned relationships? Do you have any?

I'm not sure the gay marriage advocates would necessarily welcome support of the concept that comes from the perspective of amoral, anything-goes, relationship anarchy.

Actually, you make an excellent analogous point about polygamy that applies equally to the militant rescue of homosexuality from the perversion bin, and its politically correct recycling / repackaging by the homosexual agenda ("HSA") as suddenly acceptable for mainstream society. I would note that polygamy has historically been slightly more acceptable to the males of the species, for obvious - and superficial, IMO - reasons, and thus, not tucked quite as far into the perversion bin as homosexuality historically has been.

So what should we expect to creep out of the perversion bin next for mainstream consumption as OK behavior ? NAMBLA's or any other pedophilia groups' agenda, arguing that grown men should be able to have sex with juvenile males / children ? After all, the ancient Greeks indulged in such "natural" acts, and we are soooo much more culturally advanced (in our smugly hip, sophistication) than they were.

How about sex with beasts ? Sex with daughters and sons, nephews and nieces ?

By comparison, ideas such as polygamy seem somewhat docile. But maybe that is the ultimate point: like the frog in the slowly warming pot, culture tends to not notice subtle shifts in the acceptance of perverted behavior if they incrementally advanced slowly over time, and if the propagandizing of the urged, acceptable perversion is always differentiated from more extreme examples . . . from the bin.