Gay marriage legal in US

RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 This has to really be

 This has to really be making the right wing come unglued. HA FUCK EM.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm, obviously, I support

Hmmm, obviously, I support gay marriage, but I'm somewhat ambivalent about this as a Supreme Court decision. It's always a tug-of-war between interpreting the exact 'letter' of the law vs. the 'spirit' of the law. I suppose waiting for Congress to make the change would've prolonged this issue significantly (understated), but I still feel uncomfortable about this decision. It sets a problematic precedent, like the Supreme Court can pull whatever meaning they want out of constitutional amendments except for what is very explicitly denied. 

Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Maybe this is just too vague? Lol.

Quote:
In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts said the decision was "an act of will, not legal judgment."

I sort of agree with this...

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
 Fortunately, there are

 Fortunately, there are still conservatives like Bristol Palin to uphold traditional family values.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4103
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

 Fortunately, there are still conservatives like Bristol Palin to uphold traditional family values.

 

  Speaking as a conservative with libertarian leanings, it pisses me off how the vast majority of religious right-wingers are trying to defend her and act like her continued fornications are really no big deal...as long as she doesn't abort.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I have huge issues with

 I have huge issues with the decision, I think it is complete bullshit and stepping way outside the bounds of Scotus's authority. But hanging out last night and seeing how estatic the gay crowd was with the decision, it is hard to be upset with something that causes that much happiness.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In a perfect world it would

In a perfect world it would have struck down the institution of marriage altogether. That not being an option, this is the best possible second choice. I don't see how it could possibly be viewed as contravening the constitution if one accepts that marriage in general doesn't contravene the constitution. Because there are uncontitutional laws supporting the institution of marriage in the first place, anything but equal rights for gays is even more uncontitutional.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I have

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I have huge issues with the decision, I think it is complete bullshit and stepping way outside the bounds of Scotus's authority. But hanging out last night and seeing how estatic the gay crowd was with the decision, it is hard to be upset with something that causes that much happiness.

WHAT A SHOCKER that you'd say that. You masturbate about "States rights" like it was porn, ignoring that pesky "Supremacy Clause".

The Constution was not intended to be "either/or" for one or the other as a blanket default. But it was intended to be a sanctuary concept, where dissent would be protected. Thus the "Supremacy Clause" which meant when in doubt you proctect the lesser. It combines quite well with the last part of the First Amendment "to petition the government for a redress of grievence". Which meant that the public could not use mob rule by vote, and if someone felt that their rights were stepped on, they could appeal to the courts to protect them. 

What you saw yesterday was NOT  a denial of states rights, what you saw was a defense of rights for all.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I have

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I have huge issues with the decision, I think it is complete bullshit and stepping way outside the bounds of Scotus's authority. But hanging out last night and seeing how estatic the gay crowd was with the decision, it is hard to be upset with something that causes that much happiness.

Do you feel that way because you think that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all? Or is it something else? 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I have huge issues with the decision, I think it is complete bullshit and stepping way outside the bounds of Scotus's authority. But hanging out last night and seeing how estatic the gay crowd was with the decision, it is hard to be upset with something that causes that much happiness.

WHAT A SHOCKER that you'd say that. You masturbate about "States rights" like it was porn, ignoring that pesky "Supremacy Clause".

The Constution was not intended to be "either/or" for one or the other as a blanket default. But it was intended to be a sanctuary concept, where dissent would be protected. Thus the "Supremacy Clause" which meant when in doubt you proctect the lesser. It combines quite well with the last part of the First Amendment "to petition the government for a redress of grievence". Which meant that the public could not use mob rule by vote, and if someone felt that their rights were stepped on, they could appeal to the courts to protect them. 

What you saw yesterday was NOT  a denial of states rights, what you saw was a defense of rights for all.

 

WHAT A SHOCKER, you have no understanding of my position nor constitutional law.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Beyond

Jabberwocky wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I have huge issues with the decision, I think it is complete bullshit and stepping way outside the bounds of Scotus's authority. But hanging out last night and seeing how estatic the gay crowd was with the decision, it is hard to be upset with something that causes that much happiness.

Do you feel that way because you think that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all? Or is it something else? 

I think it is a legal slam dunk that states have the authority to regulate marriage. Marriage is not a fundamental right, it is a government recognized relationship and ultimately it boils down to taxation and benefit policy. Getting married is a positive action that you choose to take, and currently the government provides certain conditional benefits if you choose to do so. 

Taxation and benefits policy can and does discriminate based of thousands of factors including age, race, gender, religion and other protected categories.  I don't think it should, but legally, it can and does. These changes can and should be made at the local level, where we already have all sorts of arbitrary rules about who can get married. If you don't like it, we have a system in place that allows you to change the laws by persuading your fellow citizens. A system in which gay marriage supporters have been gaining victories. Peaceful persuasion is always preferable to brute force, especially when it comes to significant cultural changes. Using the court system to find a right that was never there before puts our social policy in the hands of five old geezers, that isn't how our country was set up. It is increasingly disturbing that our court has made 5 to 4 decisions routine, and who votes for what depends more on the justices political leanings than any interpretation of the law. The Court is supposed to be a referee, not a political decision maker.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Court is supposed to be a referee, not a political decision maker.




yet another reason why i am an admirer of the british political system. they have the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. in general, i'm a big fan of parliamentary systems, where the executive branch comes out of the legislative branch, and thus remains a part of it and beholden to it. both the supreme court and the presidency today look very different from how the founding fathers envisioned them. they damn sure did not mean for the presidency to be as powerful as it is now, and it's also highly debatable whether or not they ever intended for the supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The Brits are not exactly a

The Brits are not exactly a country to look up to these days. They have their population under heavier surveillance than even the Americans. Even parliamentary systems can be corrupted with a party in majority. Harper has ruined Canada in just a few years with his majority government.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4103
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The Brits are

Vastet wrote:
The Brits are not exactly a country to look up to these days. They have their population under heavier surveillance than even the Americans.

    

       Britain, home to the world's largest reality show where every citizen is a "celebrity" and the cameras are never turned off. 

 

Vastet wrote:
  Even parliamentary systems can be corrupted with a party in majority.

 

                                True. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
well, in all fairness,

well, in all fairness, britain has a much smaller population and landmass to work with. also, britain is a unitive rather than a federal state, so while london might throw the scots or the irish a bone with "devolution," they don't really have to worry about pesky things like autonomy, like the US government has to with the state governments. i'm sure if the american feds had those advantages, we'd all be in a fuck-ton of trouble.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I say good deal. Fuck Mike

I say good deal. Fuck Mike Huckabee and all the rest who side with him and their self righteous bullshit relgious dogma.

I'm happy for the gays to finally get past this and I don't care about how the surpreme court did or didn't do it.

I'll add that all I see on tv is christians talking about how their religion doesn't allow this or that, blah blah fucking blah. Shut your fucking pie holes you self centered ignorant douches. Stop trying to force your dogma on all those who don't follow your religion. Gays don't go around trying to get married in your church. They want tpo have equal consideration to every day shit like insurance and benefits.

And to all the fallacies I keep seeing about 'what if three gays want to get married' or 'what if a guy wants to marry two women..." wtf? that isn't even on the table for consideration. Stick to the subject.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:And to

digitalbeachbum wrote:

And to all the fallacies I keep seeing about 'what if three gays want to get married' or 'what if a guy wants to marry two women..." wtf? that isn't even on the table for consideration. Stick to the subject.

Why shouldn't it be on the table? Where is the logical distinction between gay marriage and poly marriages that makes one a fundamental right but the other not?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

And to all the fallacies I keep seeing about 'what if three gays want to get married' or 'what if a guy wants to marry two women..." wtf? that isn't even on the table for consideration. Stick to the subject.

Why shouldn't it be on the table? Where is the logical distinction between gay marriage and poly marriages that makes one a fundamental right but the other not?

We can cross that bridge when we come to it. Don't take up the battle until it is needed.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

And to all the fallacies I keep seeing about 'what if three gays want to get married' or 'what if a guy wants to marry two women..." wtf? that isn't even on the table for consideration. Stick to the subject.

Why shouldn't it be on the table? Where is the logical distinction between gay marriage and poly marriages that makes one a fundamental right but the other not?

We can cross that bridge when we come to it. Don't take up the battle until it is needed.

So it isn't a fallacy then, it is a relevent question because as soon as you declare something a fundamental right, it goes from something that can arbitrarily be regulated, to something that requires a logical argument to prevent unless you can show a "compelling goverment interest" for it not applying in a particular case. There is absolutely no doubt that this case will be used to argue for poly marriages. And the words the Justice Kennedy wrote will be a strong influence on how future courts rule on those cases. The anti's argument was that the Court shouldn't go down that road because there wasn't a logical place to draw the line. Which in the Supreme Court is an extremely common argument for cases ranging from the mundane things to the media grabbing ones. You can guarantee at some point during oral arguments both sides will be asked where they think the justices should define the line. After all, their main purpose is to create rules and tests that lower courts can look to and apply to the individual cases they face to attempt to have some sort of consistency.

Ironically, it was the lawyers arguing for gay marriage who threw poly marriages under the bus, arguing that the Court could draw a distinct line at two people- USING THE SAME FUCKING ARGUMENTS WORD FOR FUCKING WORD AS THE MOST BIGOTED DUMB ASS XTIANS! (Sorry, in case you couldn't tell, it sort of pissed me off. Here the polyamory community as small, as it is, has backed homosexuality to the hilt since before it was cool and got thrown under the bus for expediency. I think that is pretty damned rude) In this opinion, Kennedy neglected to draw a line or create a test to determine what marriages are required, probably because the Court couldn't agree. We probably have Sotomayer to thank for the neutral language, so despite his best efforts, Bama did something useful. While the opinion doesn't open the door for poly marriages, it did leave it open a crack, which should speed up the process. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4103
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:We can

digitalbeachbum wrote:

We can cross that bridge when we come to it. Don't take up the battle until it is needed.

 

      You are behind the curve.  In fact this article is from 2013.       http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

 

    From the article:  "The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three ( or four, or six ) consenting adults.  Though polygamists are a minority--a tiny monority, in fact--freedom has no values unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let's fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States--and then let's keep fighting. We're not done yet.

 

                           

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: So it

Beyond Saving wrote:

So it isn't a fallacy then, it is a relevent question because as soon as you declare something a fundamental right, it goes from something that can arbitrarily be regulated, to something that requires a logical argument to prevent unless you can show a "compelling goverment interest" for it not applying in a particular case. There is absolutely no doubt that this case will be used to argue for poly marriages. And the words the Justice Kennedy wrote will be a strong influence on how future courts rule on those cases. The anti's argument was that the Court shouldn't go down that road because there wasn't a logical place to draw the line. Which in the Supreme Court is an extremely common argument for cases ranging from the mundane things to the media grabbing ones. You can guarantee at some point during oral arguments both sides will be asked where they think the justices should define the line. After all, their main purpose is to create rules and tests that lower courts can look to and apply to the individual cases they face to attempt to have some sort of consistency.

Ironically, it was the lawyers arguing for gay marriage who threw poly marriages under the bus, arguing that the Court could draw a distinct line at two people- USING THE SAME FUCKING ARGUMENTS WORD FOR FUCKING WORD AS THE MOST BIGOTED DUMB ASS XTIANS! (Sorry, in case you couldn't tell, it sort of pissed me off. Here the polyamory community as small, as it is, has backed homosexuality to the hilt since before it was cool and got thrown under the bus for expediency. I think that is pretty damned rude) In this opinion, Kennedy neglected to draw a line or create a test to determine what marriages are required, probably because the Court couldn't agree. We probably have Sotomayer to thank for the neutral language, so despite his best efforts, Bama did something useful. While the opinion doesn't open the door for poly marriages, it did leave it open a crack, which should speed up the process. 

I totally understand that crack in the logic opening the door for poly's. Believe me, I know.

The fallacy comes from their argument of not sticking to the argument. The argument was gays have rights to be recognized by the federal government. The poly's too. Yes and both poly relationships. Polyandry and Polygyny. They should have rights too.

Do the people who want to marry horses have rights? No. That's fucking bullshit. It isn't a fucking human relationship. Don't start with me. Having a marriage with your fucking dog isn't logical. That is where the line is drawn.

Going back to the fallacy, I consider it a strawman. They didn't stick to the argument so they bring up some other bullshit which is off in the distance. Fucking christians. Stick to the story. You don't want gays to be married. We aren't talking about one wife and three husbands, etc.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

We can cross that bridge when we come to it. Don't take up the battle until it is needed.

 

      You are behind the curve.  In fact this article is from 2013.       http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

 

    From the article:  "The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three ( or four, or six ) consenting adults.  Though polygamists are a minority--a tiny monority, in fact--freedom has no values unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let's fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States--and then let's keep fighting. We're not done yet.                  

Again... it isn't on the table. One article doesn't make it out in the front and it certianly isn't on the docket of the court.

I also would support it anyway... two husbands, one wife - one husband, three wives.. what ever...


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
This isn't necessarily an

This isn't necessarily an argument against poly-marriages, but perhaps a note? An important part of marriage, (the most important part, imo) is the legal and financial benefits. If you have more than two people, there needs to be additional laws and regulations determining what benefits people can receive and how they claim those benefits. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4103
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Again... it isn't on the table.

 

 

   As a federal legislative issue polygamy was on the table long before the issue of gay marriage ever was.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy.  

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4103
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:...

digitalbeachbum wrote:
... and it certianly isn't on the docket of the court.

 

 

        Everyone, check your watches   ...( tick tock, tick tock )

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:This

butterbattle wrote:

This isn't necessarily an argument against poly-marriages, but perhaps a note? An important part of marriage, (the most important part, imo) is the legal and financial benefits. If you have more than two people, there needs to be additional laws and regulations determining what benefits people can receive and how they claim those benefits. 

I had thought of this too. There is nothing in the statues covering more than one spouse.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
... and it certianly isn't on the docket of the court.

 

 

        Everyone, check your watches   ...( tick tock, tick tock )

I know it is coming. As Beyond said, the people out in Utah and the surrounding area who are poly's are going to be gathering up their lawyers and going to the supreme court.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Again... it isn't on the table.

 

 

   As a federal legislative issue polygamy was on the table long before the issue of gay marriage ever was.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy.  

 

Your link is bad


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I totally understand that crack in the logic opening the door for poly's. Believe me, I know.

The fallacy comes from their argument of not sticking to the argument. The argument was gays have rights to be recognized by the federal government. The poly's too. Yes and both poly relationships. Polyandry and Polygyny. They should have rights too.

You are arguing in front of the Supreme Court, they aren't considering the specific case, they are considering the principle. So how that principle would apply to any realistic hypothetical is certainly relevant to the argument. Not only is it something the defense had to bring up, if they didn't it certainly would have been brought up by the Court since it is such an obvious continuation. Actually, if I remember correctly, in oral arguments it was brought up by Justice Kennedy, the one who wrote the opinion. A good 80% of oral arguments in the Supreme Court do nothing but deal with hypothetical situations and how the principle being claimed would be applied in those situations.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
 

Do the people who want to marry horses have rights? No. That's fucking bullshit. It isn't a fucking human relationship. Don't start with me. Having a marriage with your fucking dog isn't logical. That is where the line is drawn.

Why? Because you said so? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:This

butterbattle wrote:

This isn't necessarily an argument against poly-marriages, but perhaps a note? An important part of marriage, (the most important part, imo) is the legal and financial benefits. If you have more than two people, there needs to be additional laws and regulations determining what benefits people can receive and how they claim those benefits. 

Certainly. It is hard to imagine exactly how things might change, but they would certainly need to change more radically than the relatively minor modification of two men or two women. It is theoretically possible to have very large marriages with the intent of increasing benefit qualifications, getting into a lower tax bracket, infinitely avoiding estate taxes etc. It will almost certainly be brought up as an argument, but I think it is a weak one. The repeal of Jim Crow laws caused pretty large and radical modifications to. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
get the government out of

get the government out of the marriage business and all these "problems" disappear like so much mist.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
How many people would it be

How many people would it be limted to?

I just had a weird hypothetical thought about AFL-CIO executives applying for all of its workers to be in one giant marriage.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:How many

butterbattle wrote:

How many people would it be limted to?

I just had a weird hypothetical thought about AFL-CIO executives applying for all of its workers to be in one giant marriage.

And that is the question. If you allow three, why not four? I personally know a group of four that consider themselves married. They share their resources and raise their kids together. When you are there, why not five? More rare, but I'm sure it is out there. How do you draw a line in a sensible place? If a commune of 50 people are already sharing resources and raising their kids together, why shouldn't they get married and enjoy the legal benefits? Certainly, many sci fi authors have conceived many different variations of marriages that might be potentially better from a resource/child raising point of view.

If you don't draw a line, then marriage essentially becomes a corporation (I can have a corporation of just me, or I can have a corporation of a million people) I could even name my dog part owner of the corporation if I was so inclined (not directly since animals can't legally own property, but I could set up a trust with specific instructions to operate for the benefit of the dog). It would certainly benefit me greatly if I could "marry" my business partners. Right now, in the event one of us dies, only spouses can take ownership of their stake tax free. How sweet would it be if we could just divvy it up and avoid taxes all together? One of my partners is going to be retiring next year, so the rest of us are buying him out. If we were just "married", we could simply "get divorced" and transfer an agreed amount of cash and keep the business interest tax free. Currently, we have to buy him out causing a taxable event for him. There are many reasons why small or even large business partnerships might decide to get "married" in order to get the tax benefits. Certainly, the government will never allow that to happen, but how do you draw the line? I don't see how you can if you follow the principle that marriage is a fundamental right and the government can't discriminate. When it gets to that point (which I'm sure will take many decades), perhaps the only viable solution will be for government to end the financial encouragements it offers for marriage now. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Just wait for the 'I want to

Just wait for the 'I want to marry a corporation' argument. Technically speaking it is far more likely than marrying a dog or a child. A dog is property, and you can't marry property. A child has no right to consent, so no marriage with a child can be legal either.
But corporations have been ruled to be persons, and are made up of consenting adults. It could mean significant tax breaks for a corporation to get married, and there would be significant benefit being married to a corporation. There isn't even a financial threat from divorce, as prenuptual agreements would obviously be a standard.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4103
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:   

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

 

 

Your link is bad

  Sorry.  It dealt with two pieces of federal legislation that were anti-polygamy in nature and were passed during the Buchanan and Lincoln adminstrations.  They both centered around Mormons, "plural marriages" and the terms for allowing Utah ( then a territory ) into the Union.

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3758
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:This

butterbattle wrote:
I just had a weird hypothetical thought about AFL-CIO executives applying for all of its workers to be in one giant marriage.
 Well the workers already get fucked by union bosses, so may as well make it official. 

butterbattle wrote:

This isn't necessarily an argument against poly-marriages, but perhaps a note? An important part of marriage, (the most important part, imo) is the legal and financial benefits. If you have more than two people, there needs to be additional laws and regulations determining what benefits people can receive and how they claim those benefits. 

The real purpose of government today: To get one's life and life choices subsidized by the rest of society. A subsidy for everyone and everything(except of course being a productive, law abiding citizen).

So now gays couples get to have a special privledges and subsidies at everyone that is not married expense. Such wonderful progress.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Your link is bad

  Sorry.  It dealt with two pieces of federal legislation that were anti-polygamy in nature and were passed during the Buchanan and Lincoln adminstrations.  They both centered around Mormons, "plural marriages" and the terms for allowing Utah ( then a territory ) into the Union.

They should allow the same rights for the moroms also.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Just wait for

Vastet wrote:
Just wait for the 'I want to marry a corporation' argument. Technically speaking it is far more likely than marrying a dog or a child. A dog is property, and you can't marry property. A child has no right to consent, so no marriage with a child can be legal either. But corporations have been ruled to be persons, and are made up of consenting adults. It could mean significant tax breaks for a corporation to get married, and there would be significant benefit being married to a corporation. There isn't even a financial threat from divorce, as prenuptual agreements would obviously be a standard.

lol I was thinking the same thing last election year.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I totally understand that crack in the logic opening the door for poly's. Believe me, I know.

The fallacy comes from their argument of not sticking to the argument. The argument was gays have rights to be recognized by the federal government. The poly's too. Yes and both poly relationships. Polyandry and Polygyny. They should have rights too.

You are arguing in front of the Supreme Court, they aren't considering the specific case, they are considering the principle. So how that principle would apply to any realistic hypothetical is certainly relevant to the argument. Not only is it something the defense had to bring up, if they didn't it certainly would have been brought up by the Court since it is such an obvious continuation. Actually, if I remember correctly, in oral arguments it was brought up by Justice Kennedy, the one who wrote the opinion. A good 80% of oral arguments in the Supreme Court do nothing but deal with hypothetical situations and how the principle being claimed would be applied in those situations.

I know of the decision and the comments by the pro and the con of the decision. However those who wrote the dissent weren't any better in their wording. Did you see this shit they spewed?

Gays are born gay, it is not a belief which is learned. Poly's are a learned belief, they are not born poly.

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
 

Do the people who want to marry horses have rights? No. That's fucking bullshit. It isn't a fucking human relationship. Don't start with me. Having a marriage with your fucking dog isn't logical. That is where the line is drawn.

Why? Because you said so? 

Shut your pie hole. If you are going to argue the point then present some logic to the discussion.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Gays

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Gays are born gay, it is not a belief which is learned. Poly's are a learned belief, they are not born poly.
Not sure about that, given the widespread practice of adultery.  The recurrent failure of people to uphold their marriage vows (many of whom are self-righteous defenders of the institution), it's apparent many of us have a natural inclination to multiple partners.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Gays are born gay, it is not a belief which is learned. Poly's are a learned belief, they are not born poly.
Not sure about that, given the widespread practice of adultery.  The recurrent failure of people to uphold their marriage vows (many of whom are self-righteous defenders of the institution), it's apparent many of us have a natural inclination to multiple partners.

Adultry and getting married to five women is different.

In case you don't know I don't believe in free will so technically every thing that is happening is happening because it is supposed to happen.

However at this current time and with the information I have, gays are not gays by choice.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Monagamy is a choice as much

Monagamy is a choice as much as polygamy.  It is unclear to me therefore why the government should legislate one and not the other; particuarly when we see how many are unable to stay committed to the monogamous option. 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Humans are certainly not a

Humans are certainly not a monogamous species. Being monogamous is a cultural thing, not a biological thing. Biologically we are like all other apes, and apes aren't monogamous.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Gays are attracted to other

Gays are attracted to other individuals of the same gender. That is not a choice. However, whether they actually pursue those feelings, having sex with and marrying other individuals of the same gender, is a choice.

Similarly, of course it is a choice whether I marry one woman or five women. That is probably answering the wrong question. The question should be whether humans are naturally monogamous, and the answer to that is.....no. Polyamory is much easier to understand in terms of natural selection than homosexuality too, especially when it comes to males........

Although, in terms of civil rights, not allowing gay marriage feels 100 times more unfair than not allowing polygyny. By banning gay marriage, I'm restricting homosexuals from marrying anyone they're attracted too. A mormon dude that wants ten wives is still attracted to women like most other people; he just wants more of them.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Maybe monogamy is better for

Maybe monogamy is better for human society or something? Other primates fight over partners all the time, don't they? Lol.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Monogamy arose because of

Monogamy arose because of civilised power and the idea of inheritance. The best way to maintain power is to create a dynasty. You can't have a dynasty without family. You can't have excessive competition in a family without weakening the dynasty, so monogamy is the way to go.

The dynasties are mostly gone now, but we in the West have lived with the overall concept for tens of thousands of years. It's not something easily shaken, especially when there are still a few dynasties left.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Gays are

butterbattle wrote:

Gays are attracted to other individuals of the same gender. That is not a choice. However, whether they actually pursue those feelings, having sex with and marrying other individuals of the same gender, is a choice.

Similarly, of course it is a choice whether I marry one woman or five women. That is probably answering the wrong question. The question should be whether humans are naturally monogamous, and the answer to that is.....no. Polyamory is much easier to understand in terms of natural selection than homosexuality too, especially when it comes to males........

Although, in terms of civil rights, not allowing gay marriage feels 100 times more unfair than not allowing polygyny. By banning gay marriage, I'm restricting homosexuals from marrying anyone they're attracted too. A mormon dude that wants ten wives is still attracted to women like most other people; he just wants more of them.

Nothing is a choice even though it seems like you are making one.

Gays deserve to have the same rights as non-gays.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Gays

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Gays are born gay, it is not a belief which is learned. Poly's are a learned belief, they are not born poly.

Any evidence for those assertions?

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
 

Shut your pie hole. If you are going to argue the point then present some logic to the discussion.

What could I possibly present? I haven't advocated a position. I am asking you to explain your line and why it is at animals. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:though, in terms of

Quote:
though, in terms of civil rights, not allowing gay marriage feels 100 times more unfair than not allowing polygyny. By banning gay marriage, I'm restricting homosexuals from marrying anyone they're attracted too. A mormon dude that wants ten wives is still attracted to women like most other people; he just wants more of them.

What of the person who wishes to marry one of each gender and is attracted to both? Must a non-repressed JLY choose between a wife or a husband if he has found a heterosexual woman and a gay man both consenting? I suspect that a situation like that is more common than the Mormon with a line of wives, though perhaps that is a skewed perspective based on the type of people I associate with. 

I also reject the idea that people are generally gay or straight and that sexual preference is static or even that sexual preference should be the sole variable in determining who to marry. I think invariably, these discussions become based in a number of assumptions from personal experience that may not apply universally. A sexless marriage can be a very good and strong marriage. Many people engage in sexual activities with people who are not the gender of their preference, and I daresay they generally enjoy it (assuming it is consenting).

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm certainly willing to

I'm certainly willing to believe that sexual preference isn't always static with everyone, but it certainly is for at least some. I've had closer, more trusting relationships with a few guys than I've ever had with gals, but I've never once been sexually attracted to a guy. The thought of being with one is a complete turn off, bordering on disgust. I have no problem with guys being attracted to guys, or gals being attracted to gals, but I personally have no sexual interest in males whatsoever.

I would however agree completely that a sexual relationship isn't remotely necessary for marriage. I look at marriage as more of a business decision than anything. I've seen too much bs go down after a divorce to think of it as a good thing to do over emotional impulses. It ruins people.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Nothing is a choice even though it seems like you are making one.

Gays deserve to have the same rights as non-gays.

Yes, there is no free will. Yes, gays deserve the same rights. I understand your position on free will. I understand because I think I have the same position. It is still irrelevant in the context of this discussion. If you're too stuck on the word "choice," then you can think of it as "agency" or "a conscious decision" or "an apparent choice" or whatever you want. Regardless, homosexuality has a basis in genetics and so does polyamory. Do you agree or disagree?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare