Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Warning: This thread is pretty gay

Warning: This thread is pretty gay (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2013, 06:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The former example is upset by others' pigeonholing her to the label of bisexual. She had never been with a woman and was married to a man for 15 years before, in her words, choosing to be gay. I know few things frustrate the gay community more, but it is so and it can't be said with any degree of certainty that no one chooses their sexual orientation.
Perhaps, but if I had money to bet, I'd bet she sleeps with a man again.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2013, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I have come to the same conclusion (2 of the same personality type clash), but not about romance. I never put it into words before though. What do you mean by "fixed?" Is dominant not fixed (as opposed to mutable)?
Fixed is characterized as stability and persistence, resistant to change but reliable. They have strong nesting instincts and are "home-builders". Mutable people are flexible and highly adaptive, they perform well as mediators and thrive at multitasking. Dominant is what you'd expect. They're the leaders and are dynamic, authoritative, and proactive.

I usually classify people in primary/secondary modes. As an example, I'm Mutable/dominant or M/d, and my spouses are D/f (she can be quite stubborn) and F/m (she's a relaxed homebody).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2013, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Correct and for a couple of reasons; first, there's nothing inherently unequal about polygamy that wouldn't also apply in monogamous relationships. I presume no one would knowingly enter into an inherently unequal situation, but it wouldn't be our business anyway. If it's outright abusive, we have laws for that. Second, you've isolated it to one man, multiple women, but no one else is talking about it as if this would be necessary or the only protected form of polygamy.
Yes there is.

With polygyny the men get to marry a bunch of people and the women don't.

With polyandry it's the opposite.

Group marriage is the only one which doesn't have this inherent inequality.


But if you want to put a fine point on it, I said "often", as all polygamous marriages are not of the unequal kind, but since the question you wanted me to answer was why is it necessarily abusive. In an attempt to answer your question I referred to one of the types in where it is in fact, necessarily.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2013, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes there is.

With polygyny the men get to marry a bunch of people and the women don't.

With polyandry it's the opposite.

Group marriage is the only one which doesn't have this inherent inequality.


But if you want to put a fine point on it, I said "often", as all polygamous marriages are not of the unequal kind, but since the question you wanted me to answer was why is it necessarily abusive. In an attempt to answer your question I referred to one of the types in where it is in fact, necessarily.
So... polyandry is where the woman gets to marry a bunch of people, but the man can't. What man or woman would enter this type of relationship you ask? Well, who would enter into any type of contractual bond that limits their liberties and makes them unequal to people who can date a bunch of people as they wish. Otherwise, you've not only been changing the words you're using, but now you're moving the goalposts from unequal to abusive. Again, the relationship -- be it polygany or polyandry as forms of polygamy, etc are not inherently unequal unless the parties have willfully engaged in the unequal relationship just as they have in their monogamous relationships from time immemorial. While monogamous relationships are wrought with inequality and abuses of numerous and varied types, we don't get to make that call, necessarily, and there are laws for outright abuses.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2013, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... polyandry is where the woman gets to marry a bunch of people, but the man can't. What man or woman would enter this type of relationship you ask? Well, who would enter into any type of contractual bond that limits their liberties and makes them unequal to people who can date a bunch of people as they wish. Otherwise, you've not only been changing the words you're using, but now you're moving the goalposts from unequal to abusive. Again, the relationship -- be it polygany or polyandry as forms of polygamy, etc are not inherently unequal unless the parties have willfully engaged in the unequal relationship just as they have in their monogamous relationships from time immemorial. While monogamous relationships are wrought with inequality and abuses of numerous and varied types, we don't get to make that call, necessarily, and there are laws for outright abuses.
I think the sort of abuses that occur in (or more often perhaps) result in polygamy are the sort of abuses that everyone knows are abuses, but are incredibly difficult to prove or prosecute. Many would argue that its more likely than not that some kind of inequality or abuse is actually required for polygamy to happen. It certainly isn't necessary for monogamous relationships.

I guess its difficult to really spell out. It would be interesting to know what kind of conversations took place when lawmakers actually banned polygamy. Or what conversations they might have had about it since.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2013, 08:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... polyandry is where the woman gets to marry a bunch of people, but the man can't. What man or woman would enter this type of relationship you ask? Well, who would enter into any type of contractual bond that limits their liberties and makes them unequal to people who can date a bunch of people as they wish. Otherwise, you've not only been changing the words you're using, but now you're moving the goalposts from unequal to abusive. Again, the relationship -- be it polygany or polyandry as forms of polygamy, etc are not inherently unequal unless the parties have willfully engaged in the unequal relationship just as they have in their monogamous relationships from time immemorial. While monogamous relationships are wrought with inequality and abuses of numerous and varied types, we don't get to make that call, necessarily, and there are laws for outright abuses.
Moving goalposts?

The question is why it's abusive. The answer I have provided is inherent inequality.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2013, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Moving goalposts?

The question is why it's abusive. The answer I have provided is inherent inequality.
But you've not explained how inequality is any less inherent in the current state of marriage. Unequal and abusive are two different things IMO. I would oppose the legalization of abuse for sure, without having to be the arbiter of equal. Again, we don't generally make these sorts of judgement calls on the consenting parties of marriage today, I don't see why that would change at all.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2013, 11:22 PM
 
Let's take this a step at a time.

In a normal marriage, neither party gets to marry anyone. They're already married.

In a polygynyous marriage, the man gets to marry more people, the women don't.

I'm honestly struggling to see how these are the same in terms of equality, or is that not what you're saying?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2013, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let's take this a step at a time.

In a normal marriage, neither party gets to marry anyone. They're already married.
Which, by your logic means they are now unequal to their friends who did not get married. After all, the friends are able to sleep with any opportunity that comes along, married people can not. Married people must be willing to engage this inequality for the benefits of the relationship, whatever they may be. They may not be entirely, equally yoked or invested in the relationship, but they've consented to it and we generally don't challenge the veracity of that claim. We don't make judgement calls on whether or not the two parties are equal.

In a polygynyous marriage, the man gets to marry more people, the women don't.
But he doesn't get to make women marry him. They have to be a willing, consenting participant.

I'm honestly struggling to see how these are the same in terms of equality, or is that not what you're saying?
I'm wondering why you're applying a unique litmus to this scenario. They may very well be unequal, but we don't make these judgment calls. Until the divorce mind you. And then the victimized woman takes half of everything the 1%-er has and lives happily ever after... if she so chooses.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 10:43 AM
 
You've actually managed to lose me more.

This particular equality (that of neither party being able to marry someone else) is explicitly written in every set of marriage laws in this country. Where does a judgement call ever enter the equation? Either the contract provides equal strictures on both parties, or it doesn't.

The fact the parties consented doesn't change whether the contract provides equal strictures for them, so I don't understand what that has to do with anything. It's certainly not explained by the example of two people signing a contract having unequal strictures to those who haven't entered into a contract at all.

     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You've actually managed to lose me more.
I believe that has more to do with the sandy foundation on which your argument rests.

This particular equality (that of neither party being able to marry someone else) is explicitly written in every set of marriage laws in this country. Where does a judgement call ever enter the equation? Either the contract provides equal strictures on both parties, or it doesn't.
Polygamy encompasses both polyandry and polygyny. Since the current definition of marriage written into the marital laws of this country specify one man and one woman and will need to be redefined anyway; simple language could be written into law that removes the strictures altogether. There's no reason polygamy is inherently unequal as it encompasses both forms and from the perspective of the State, does not limit the relationship to either polyandry or polygyny. Relationships take on many forms as it is and in most cases is a judgement call we do not make. Adultery is illegal in less than half the States of the US which means in most States the two can agree to an open marriage and sleep around without being liable for infidelity. Again, we generally don't get this granular in judging the parties' equality. The strictures you speak of are easily addressed.

The fact the parties consented doesn't change whether the contract provides equal strictures for them, so I don't understand what that has to do with anything. It's certainly not explained by the example of two people signing a contract having unequal strictures to those who haven't entered into a contract at all.
Of course it does. We have prenups for all kinds of things that manipulate the playing field and the equality of that relationship is subject only to the contract on which the two parties have consented.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 12:05 PM
 
Prenups aren't inherent.

How does the fact polygyny and polyandry are structurally equivalent to each other have any bearing whatsoever on the participants of a particular form?

How much of polygamy being illegal do you think was due to polyandry?

Help me clear out the sand.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Prenups aren't inherent.
Right, because they're contractually agreed to prior to marriage. Polygamy is not inherently unequal and is subject to the agreement of the participants.

How does the fact polygyny and polyandry are structurally equivalent to each other have any bearing whatsoever on the participants of a particular form?
Because you're the only one relegating it to that form. Polygamy is polygamy and there doesn't have to be laws acknowledging polygyny or polyandry; just polygamy which goes both ways. In other words, you're redefining something to find it distasteful when that's not necessary. Others have been using polygamy, you've been the only one using polygyny.

How much of polygamy being illegal do you think was due to polyandry?
How much of gay marriage being illegal do you suppose has to do with misunderstanding it?

Help me clear out the sand.
That's up to you as I cannot stop you from pouring more in.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In a polygynyous marriage, the man gets to marry more people, the women don't
That's a restricted way of looking at it, especially in the context of this thread: if a woman is bisexual, then adding another woman to the group can be as much for her interest as the man's.

Furthermore, why couldn't you have a plural marriage with 2 men and 2 women (or 4 men and no women)?

I'm still confused by the fact that you yourself used the term "polygamy" in this thread, and then only towards the end did you switch to "polygyny." Can you please comment on that?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 08:11 PM
 
If everyone is marrying each other, that's group marriage, which is neither polygyny or polyandry.

I started using the term "polygamy" for the same reason people use the term polygamy to refer to Mormons, even though when they practice their religious plural marriage it's always polygyny.

Once it was clear that was causing confusion, I changed to the specific term.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
That's up to you as I cannot stop you from pouring more in.
Is there a reason you're being so unpleasant? Was it the Mrs. ebuddy thing?

If it is, I will both apologize, and plead I think you may not be taking it the way it was intended (which would be my fault for lacking clarity).

If it's not that, I'm wondering where this abuse is coming from.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If everyone is marrying each other, that's group marriage, which is neither polygyny or polyandry.
Why is polygyny relevant? What possible basis could be claimed for legalizing polygyny but not polygamy (what you call "group marriage")?


I started using the term "polygamy" for the same reason people use the term polygamy to refer to Mormons, even though when they practice their religious plural marriage it's always polygyny.
So just clear this up for me: yes or no, polygamy (per the dictionary) is not unequal or innately abusive?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 10:30 PM
 
Can I ask you to supply the dictionary definition you want me to use? That will be of great assistance in answering your questions.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 08:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is there a reason you're being so unpleasant? Was it the Mrs. ebuddy thing?

If it is, I will both apologize, and plead I think you may not be taking it the way it was intended (which would be my fault for lacking clarity).

If it's not that, I'm wondering where this abuse is coming from.
Abuse? C'mon subego.

Here's the thing, there's no reason this has to be confusing and I maintain that you're confusing the issue by insisting it must be one form of something when it doesn't. You're redefining a state and calling that state inherently unequal without qualifying why it has to be relegated to that state, that's all. I thought the Mrs. ebuddy thing was just weird in context of a thread on gay marriage as if to support any of these less-than-conventional scenarios, I must fully live them out by first proposing them to my spouse.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Can I ask you to supply the dictionary definition you want me to use? That will be of great assistance in answering your questions.
It seems reasonable to go with the most readily available MacOS dictionary;

polygamy |pəˈligəmē|
noun
1 the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
you're confusing the issue by insisting it must be one form of something when it doesn't.
Yeah that's what I"m perceiving from this thread too. It's frustrating/disorienting when you (subego) keep doing this, especially after you've already realized there was a misunderstanding about that exact thing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 12:49 PM
 
So we've had polygamy and polyandry, are there terms for multi-way same sex marriages?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Abuse? C'mon subego.

Here's the thing, there's no reason this has to be confusing and I maintain that you're confusing the issue by insisting it must be one form of something when it doesn't.
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yeah that's what I"m perceiving from this thread too. It's frustrating/disorienting when you (subego) keep doing this, especially after you've already realized there was a misunderstanding about that exact thing.
Guess what guys? I'm just as frustrated as you, and am trying really hard here. Which is why I don't appreciate the accusations I'm being intentionally frustrating (ebuddy), or dogpiling me before I can even answer the question (Uncle Skeleton).

I'm restraining myself from taking shots, is it too ask for you to do the same? If you find this too frustrating, then fine. You win. I'm not in this to piss people off. I like both of you, and I have no interest in giving either of you a hard time.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 04:44 PM
 
Sorry dude, I was just trying to avoid looking like I was giving you the silent treatment. Misunderstanding.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 04:51 PM
 
No worries!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So we've had polygamy and polyandry, are there terms for multi-way same sex marriages?
polyGAYmy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Why is polygyny relevant? What possible basis could be claimed for legalizing polygyny but not polygamy (what you call "group marriage")?

So just clear this up for me: yes or no, polygamy (per the dictionary) is not unequal or innately abusive?
Polygamy, per the definition provided by ebuddy, is not unequal, or innately abusive. This is because the term applies to (at least) three distinct forms of union.

Polygyny and polyandry are innately unequal. The union is defined by the fact one member gets to do things the other members don't.

Group marriage, which is also polygamy, is not unequal, therefore one can't say polygamy is inherently unequal.


Now, and this may be where the confusion is arising from, is that all forms of polygamy are illegal, but (I understand) this is almost wholly because of polygyny, which is (and has always been) an order of magnitude more popular than the other varieties.


I definitely know there are some crossed wires here, because I can't think of a reason why I would want only polygyny to be legal, and the others not. If it appears as if I've stated that, it's poor communication on my part.

Again, my assumption is the confusion is rooted in us talking about what is illegal (all forms of polygamy), and why said is illegal (almost polygyny exclusively).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Polygyny and polyandry are innately unequal. The union is defined by the fact one member gets to do things the other members don't.
What makes you say it's the man who "does it" when another woman is brought in? Why can't we say it's the woman who is marrying another woman alongside her first (male) spouse when that happens (when a second woman joins the relationship)? Or more to the point, shouldn't we say they all 3 decided it together? If there's 2 ways to describe what happened, one of which makes it sound nasty and one that makes it sound fine, shouldn't we give the (consenting adult) participants the benefit of the doubt that they aren't inherently nasty? Isn't that kinda what the "freedom" theme is all about, especially in re gay marriage?

Now, and this may be where the confusion is arising from, is that all forms of polygamy are illegal, but (I understand) this is almost wholly because of polygyny, which is (and has always been) an order of magnitude more popular than the other varieties.
I don't understand why we should care about what form has been historically dominant. Because the historically dominant form of traditional marriage with 1 man and 1 woman was also unequal and abusive (by our modern standards). "Just don't do it the abusive way" has been a fine answer for the traditional marriage version, so isn't it a little of a double-standard to expect it not to work for polygamy too?

Again, my assumption is the confusion is rooted in us talking about what is illegal (all forms of polygamy), and why said is illegal (almost polygyny exclusively).
I'm still confused, are you advocating the prohibition on polygyny/amy, or just dissecting it?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 06:40 PM
 
Okay. I think I may be figuring out where things are getting tripped up.

Here's how I'm defining things. The reason why I define things this way is because I honestly understand these terms to be defined this way. To put it another way, I didn't come up with these definitions to support my position, these were the definitions I was taught.

Polygyny refers specifically to a situation wherein the women are married to the man, but not each other. If everyone is married to each other that's group marriage, not polygyny, even if the gender breakdown is one man and multiple women.

Again. This is only what I was taught, so I have no reason to be invested in it. We can change stuff around all you want. You point to the page, and I'll get on it.

It does appear to me there is at least some value in maintaining a distinction between the dynamic at play amongst the participants. Maybe not. I'm open.

Is this helping?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 07:26 PM
 
Yeah I think I get you now, mostly. So if I could paraphrase, you would be ok with legalizing polygamy (the good kind) but only if the Mormon version could stay illegal? (and corollary: since the balancing act I just described would be grossly inappropriate per the 1st amendment, the good kind of polygamy should stay cock-blocked indefinitely by the bad kind?)

What about my question about giving people the benefit of the doubt to do the right thing on their own? Do we not trust people to not volunteer to be slave-wives? Or do we not trust marriage contracts to be voluntary?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 07:36 PM
 
I think all polygamy should be legal, despite the problems of the Mormon kind.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 07:49 PM
 
But you think the prohibition is justified on a purely logical basis?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 07:56 PM
 
I'm not sure I follow.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 11:15 PM
 
Because you said this about polygamy:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If legalizing gay marriage was legalizing a similar form and level of harm, then I think you could argue legalizing one would have an impact on the legal status of other.
I assumed that meant one can't argue the legalizing of gay marriage would have an impact on the legal status of polygamy. Did I read that wrong?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2013, 02:08 AM
 
You read it right. I think I understand what you're getting at.

There are valid reasons to ban Mormon Style, which I would invoke were I the type who believed the government should interfere in such matters.

There are no valid reasons to ban gay marriage.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 08:05 AM
 
We'll soon find out what will happen. The SCOTUS hears DOMA and prop 8 in March with a ruling due by the end of June.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 10:20 AM
 
Has my point been clarified at all for you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Has my point been clarified at all for you?
It has and there's really no reason the definition of marriage cannot remain between two parties exclusively. Not directed at you, subego as you've been consistently more focused on the equal protection piece, but I'm still curious about the lines of morality some folks draw with this stuff as their reasoning at times sounds an awful lot like those opposed to gay marriage.

What can I say, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 02:17 PM
 
I can't believe I only just noticed but does anyone else think its a touch hypocritical that there are Anglicans/Protestants protesting the redefinition of marriage?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I can't believe I only just noticed but does anyone else think its a touch hypocritical that there are Anglicans/Protestants protesting the redefinition of marriage?
What do you mean, exactly?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 03:00 PM
 
Because they only exist so that Henry VIII was able to redefine marriage?

I think there's a statute of limitations on hypocrisy somewhere around 1 lifetime
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Because they only exist so that Henry VIII was able to redefine marriage?

I think there's a statute of limitations on hypocrisy somewhere around 1 lifetime
It does make a point about worrying about "traditional" marriage not being so traditional or that redefining it isn't so unheard of.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 03:22 PM
 
Once every 500 years doesn't resonate with my sense of "isn't so unheard of." The interracial analogy seems to be equivalent or better in every way I can think of.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Once every 500 years doesn't resonate with my sense of "isn't so unheard of."
I suppose you're right. I feel it debunks the myth of marriage being sacrosanct, however.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It has and there's really no reason the definition of marriage cannot remain between two parties exclusively. Not directed at you, subego as you've been consistently more focused on the equal protection piece, but I'm still curious about the lines of morality some folks draw with this stuff as their reasoning at times sounds an awful lot like those opposed to gay marriage.

What can I say, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
That's one of the things which threw me. I'm pretty consistently pro-legalization of polygamy, and I kinda get the feeling you're not.

It was odd to have me arguing about its harms and you (seemingly) singing its praises.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2013, 05:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Because they only exist so that Henry VIII was able to redefine marriage?

I think there's a statute of limitations on hypocrisy somewhere around 1 lifetime
That was indeed what I was getting at. Surely the statute is longer when the hypocrisy revolves around your reason for being?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2013, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's one of the things which threw me. I'm pretty consistently pro-legalization of polygamy, and I kinda get the feeling you're not.

It was odd to have me arguing about its harms and you (seemingly) singing its praises.
I explained it to Dakar earlier. In principle, I see no compelling reason to deny polygamy and/or familial marriages and I think civil unions are the most equitable means of avoiding that denial. But I champion neither.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 10:02 AM
 
Holy crap, Mexico.

Mexican Supreme Court: American Cases Demand Marriage Equality
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutionally discriminatory, Mexico's Supreme Court announced in a sweeping ruling made public Monday.
The ruling not only makes a strong statement about Mexican law's treatment of equal protection guarantees, it also relies heavily on civil rights rulings handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although several justices of the American court take pride in not caring what foreign courts say, any who read the Mexican decision will find the court makes an impassioned case for the United States to follow its lead.
On Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage in 1967, Zaldívar wrote (translated from its original Spanish):
The historical disadvantages that homosexuals have suffered have been well recognized and documented: public harassment, verbal abuse, discrimination in their employment and in access to certain services, in addition to their exclusion to some aspects of public life. In this sense … when they are denied access to marriage it creates an analogy with the discrimination that interracial couples suffered in another era. In the celebrated case Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court argued that "restricting marriage rights as belonging to one race or another is incompatible with the equal protection clause" under the US constitution. In connection with this analogy, it can be said that the normative power of marriage is worth little if it does grant the possibility to marry the person one chooses.
Zaldívar also wrote that it would also be contrary to the principles of the 1954 school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education to restrict same-sex couples to civil unions or domestic partnerships while barring them from marriage.
It can be said that the [other] models for recognition of same-sex couples, even if the only difference with marriage be the name given to both types of institutions, are inherently discriminatory because the constitute a regime of "separate but equal." Like racial segregation, founded on the unacceptable idea of white supremacy, the exclusion of homosexual couples from marriage also is based on prejudice that historically has existed against homosexuals. Their exclusion from the institution of marriage perpetuates the notion that same-sex couples are less worthy of recognition than heterosexuals, offending their dignity as people.
Unlike in the United States, it takes more than one ruling from Mexico's Supreme Court to strike down a law—the court must rule the same way in five separate cases before a law falls. This ruling concerns three separate cases; it will take two more for any same-sex couple in Oaxaca to be able to wed easily, and then the process may have to be repeated in other states. But this precedent means this is a procedural issue, not a legal one.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Unlike in the United States, it takes more than one ruling from Mexico's Supreme Court to strike down a law—the court must rule the same way in five separate cases before a law falls.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
and then the process may have to be repeated in other states.
Jeebus...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2