[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Utah, as a condition of admittance as a state, had to outlaw polygamy, not just the territory, but the LDS church as well.

At one time states could not join the union except as a slave-state-free-state pair, but that is no justification for condoning slavery.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Many people are born gay. It's genetic. They don't choose to be gay, it's who they are. That is a fundamental difference between gay marriage and polygamy. Polygamy is a social and often religious choice. Denying gays the right to marry is the same discrimination as denying someone the right to marry because of the color of their skin.

It's going to be very hard to justify denying people the practice of their religious beliefs (if polygamy is one) without arguing that state-sanctioned marriage is some sort of special case. Freedom of religion is a core American belief, far more so than any "freedom of race" or "freedom of sexual orientation" (things that haven't been "free" in America for nearly as long as religion has). Denying Mormons the right to polygamize is far less justifiable than denying gays the right to marry, at least based on a pure classification argument like the one you're making.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why set a age limit for alcohol?

I thought you were a libertarian?

I don't want to have to shoot too many kids throwing up on my lawn.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Like Anne Heche and Lindsey Lohan?

Considering Lindsay's only stable relationship appears to have been with a woman, she actually might be a good argument for it being inherent.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't want to have to shoot too many kids throwing up on my lawn.

I don't want to shoot too many folks sitting on my doorway getting stone and stinking up my place with the smell of weed.

Or those religious folks who keep coming to my door telling Jesus will save me.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Or those religious folks who keep coming to my door telling Jesus will save me.

True story (not as good as the Greek story)

Jehovah's Witness: Hello, we were wondering if you've found Jesus?
Tim: Oh sh*t! Is he missing? Did you file a missing persons report with the police? Hold on, I'll get the phone book! *closes the door*

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's going to be very hard to justify denying people the practice of their religious beliefs (if polygamy is one) without arguing that state-sanctioned marriage is some sort of special case. Freedom of religion is a core American belief, far more so than any "freedom of race" or "freedom of sexual orientation" (things that haven't been "free" in America for nearly as long as religion has). Denying Mormons the right to polygamize is far less justifiable than denying gays the right to marry, at least based on a pure classification argument like the one you're making.

Mormons can get married to more than one wife, no one is stopping them. Their marriage just won't be recognized under the law. I'm also not against polygamy, but polygamy isn't discrimination against someone over an issue they have no control over like skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. It's not inalienable.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Like Anne Heche and Lindsey Lohan?

I don't know if they're gay or if they're just looking for attention.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Mormons can get married to more than one wife, no one is stopping them. Their marriage just won't be recognized under the law. I'm also not against polygamy, but polygamy isn't discrimination against someone over an issue they have no control over like skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. It's not inalienable.

Gays can marry same-sex partners, no one is stopping them. Their marriage just won't be recognized under the law.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Many people are born gay. It's genetic. They don't choose to be gay, it's who they are.

I'm glad you said "many".

In some psychiatric circles there is a belief that "gayness" is on a sliding scale, tilted toward heterosexuality, but with still a significant homosexual component.

So, someone who is "born gay" might be 98% gay and 2% straight, and someone who is "born straight" is 98% straight and 2% gay. OTOH, someone who is straight but willing to explore might be 75% straight and 25% gay. Obviously that is a massive oversimplification, but that does bring in the concept of the 50/50 individual. ie. Many people believe (as I do), that the concept of bi really does exist.

Just as importantly though, what this means is that if someone who is a supposed 50/50er might end up "straight" and be confortable with it when presented with an environment where homosexuality is completely shunned, whereas a very similar 50/50er might be totally comfortable with either sex if in an environment where it is culturally acceptable.

Thus, I'd give Anne Heche the benefit of the doubt here. It's not as if she revelled in her gayness for PR. Well, at least not as much as her ex-partner Ellen did.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I'm glad you said "many".

Well, a society and their beliefs will have a huge effect on someone whether it's genetic or not. Rome is perfect example of how homosexuality was "normal" and sometimes even expected of some people, gay or not. In fact, in some instances, you were more of a man if you had sex with another man (pitcher, not catcher); an idea that has actually carried on into parts of Europe and Mexico.

When it comes to genetics, though, we do know now largely what chromosome affects sexual orientation, what chemicals are involved, how pheromone receptors interpret those chemicals, and other factors. Mostly chromosomes. Something gets mixed up when developing, and man or a woman quite literally gets mixed signals.

Several companies have developed drugs (though, none of which are available for people as far as I know) that can actually reverse the sexual orientation in gay mice, goats, sheep, etc., or, completely stop their libido all together (the one that stops the libido also causes severe depression... don't need a scientist to figure that one out. )

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Something gets mixed up when developing, and man or a woman quite literally gets mixed signals.

So you're saying homosexuality is usually a genetic defect. If I were to say that I'd be called a hater, but whatever.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So you're saying homosexuality is usually a genetic defect. If I were to say that I'd be called a hater, but whatever.

He said it's a genetic abnormality. "Defect" would be judging. Red hair is also a "defect" if you want to look at it that way, but I wouldn't want to live in a world without redheads.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

In fact, in some instances, you were more of a man if you had sex with another man (pitcher, not catcher); an idea that has actually carried on into parts of Europe and Mexico Canada.

Fixed.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So you're saying homosexuality is usually a genetic defect. If I were to say that I'd be called a hater, but whatever.

You're showing your bias. No one said it was a defect; it is a condition that appears to be present in some individuals. Of course you'd no doubt rather see it as a defect, as that gives you "justification" to keep your mind closed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The innateness is a red herring. Religion is not genetic, but it is protected. Pedophilia is often genetic (or innate in some other manner), but isn't protected. Whether or not gayness is genetic has no bearing on whether we should protect it.

[The Crook]

Let me address each of these separately, because there's a lot there:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Religion is not genetic, but it is protected.

Religion is protected under the Free Exercise/Establishment Clause; not the Due Process/ Equal Protection Clause.

It's an entirely different analysis.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Pedophilia is often genetic (or innate in some other manner), but isn't protected.

The state has a pretty compelling reason to forbid sexual acts between adults and children: children generally lack the capacity to consent. Pedophiles absolutely are being denied equal protection of the law and for very good reason.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The innateness is a red herring... Whether or not gayness is genetic has no bearing on whether we should protect it.

The innateness factor matters quite a bit.

While it doesn't necessarily have to be genetic, sexual orientation is still a largely immutable, fundamental part of who we are. So it just seems unfair in this context to deny same-sex couples a right as fundamental as marriage based on something they can't change.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Gays can marry same-sex partners, no one is stopping them. Their marriage just won't be recognized under the law.

You're missing the point. You aren't born a polygamist.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So you're saying homosexuality is usually a genetic defect. If I were to say that I'd be called a hater, but whatever.

I didn't say that homosexuality is a genetic defect. Gene mutations account for endless possibilities. Homosexuality is perhaps more prevalent in humans because this particular trait is not dependent on survival. In the wild, homosexual animals will generally live out their lives like any other member of the species with the exception of procreation. Humans may be unique because peer pressure can produce a productive couple even if one or both are gay.

[olePigeon]

Was gonna respond again, but Crook pretty much covered it.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

True story (not as good as the Greek story)

Heh, you remembered!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I didn't say that homosexuality is a genetic defect. Gene mutations account for endless possibilities. Homosexuality is perhaps more prevalent in humans because this particular trait is not dependent on survival. In the wild, homosexual animals will generally live out their lives like any other member of the species with the exception of procreation. Humans may be unique because peer pressure can produce a productive couple even if one or both are gay.

Recent studies suggest that homosexuality has both, genetic and environmental factors. Naively put, homosexuality should have `died out' a long time ago since homosexuals produce far less offspring. The genetic factors seem to be passed on from the maternal side. Another study on identical twins shows that siblings of homosexual men statistically have more children. The explanation within evolutionary theory is that this gives a `reproductive advantage to one sex while disadvantaging the other' (for the sake of the family). No such correlation was found between female homosexuality and fertility.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You're missing the point. You aren't born a polygamist.

Wrong. Every hetero bloke on the planet is born a polygynist - we're all hard-coded to spread the seed far and wide. It's only pressure from society which prevents people from engaging in this natural manner.

[Eug]

Indeed. We aren't swans, which generally mate for life.

This is very untrue for humans. In fact, swans cheat too - they sometimes have multiple partners.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Recent studies suggest that homosexuality has both, genetic and environmental factors. Naively put, homosexuality should have `died out' a long time ago since homosexuals produce far less offspring. The genetic factors seem to be passed on from the maternal side. Another study on identical twins shows that siblings of homosexual men statistically have more children. The explanation within evolutionary theory is that this gives a `reproductive advantage to one sex while disadvantaging the other' (for the sake of the family). No such correlation was found between female homosexuality and fertility.

I mentioned the socio/environmental impact on homosexuality. It's interesting that there are new studies coming out (heh) on the subject. It is entirely possible that homosexuality is, in fact, a sort of genetic fail-safe to ensure genetic diversity in a species; something that was inherited from our ancestors. To the extreme, there are many species of animals that will completely change their gender in a single-sex environment to ensure procreation.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wrong. Every hetero bloke on the planet is born a polygynist - we're all hard-coded to spread the seed far and wide. It's only pressure from society which prevents people from engaging in this natural manner.

I think your confusing polygamy with promiscuity. I agree with you that men are probably hard-wired to want to have sex with many partners. But I seriously doubt men want to marry every person they have sex with.

Polygamy is a social instrument... and IS a choice.

Edit: The other thing nobody has brought up is that historically, the practice of polygamy has generally been limited to a single man and many women. It also seems that most polygamous relationships are not necessarily consensual from the woman's perspective.

I seriously doubt there are anywhere near as many people that want to legally enter into a plural marriage as there are homosexuals wanting to enter into in a 2-person marriage (binary marriage?)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I think your confusing polygamy with promiscuity. I agree with you that men are probably hard-wired to want to have sex with many partners.

Women are no different: each sexual partner of a man has a female counterpart so that on average, both have the same number of sexual partners. (I had to convince a (female) friend of mine, she tried to reject reality and substitute her illusion that promiscuity is a male thing.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I think your confusing polygamy with promiscuity. I agree with you that men are probably hard-wired to want to have sex with many partners. But I seriously doubt men want to marry every person they have sex with.

No, but I suspect a fair number of them would marry more than one.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Women are no different: each sexual partner of a man has a female counterpart so that on average, both have the same number of sexual partners. (I had to convince a (female) friend of mine, she tried to reject reality and substitute her illusion that promiscuity is a male thing.)

Nothing in my statement precluded women. I was just stating that I believe men are hard-wired to be promiscuous. Haven't had much experience with women in that department (ok.. none), so I can't speak on their behalf.

[Doofy]

Oh, and I'm withdrawing my support for gay marriage until such a time as the gays openly support polygyny. See, from where I'm standing it looks like you're not arguing out of an ideological political conviction but rather out of selfishness.

So, YES to Prop 8.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, but I suspect a fair number of them would marry more than one.

Interesting conjecture but not one I believe. What percentage of heterosexual men do you believe would want to enter into plural marriage?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Interesting conjecture but not one I believe. What percentage of heterosexual men do you believe would want to enter into plural marriage?

Probably a fair number. It was common practice historically in China, and is common practice in some Muslim countries today.

Polyandry is much less common, but has existed in China for example.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Nothing in my statement precluded women. I was just stating that I believe men are hard-wired to be promiscuous. Haven't had much experience with women in that department (ok.. none), so I can't speak on their behalf.

Well, you wrote `men' in your post. I'm sure you didn't want to exclude them, but I merely wanted to emphasize the point that men and women are equal opportunity offenders in that department, hehe

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I believe men are hard-wired to be promiscuous.

I'm not so sure. I think levels of promiscuity are highly dependent on cultural norms that people are raised with, although there are exceptional cases. On the whole, western pop culture has grown far more accepting of promiscuity over the last 50 years, so it's no surprise that we see it more often, across gender lines - people view it as acceptable. I personally find it abhorrent and question the moral foundation of any person who chooses a promiscuous lifestyle. But then again, I suppose I'm much more socially conservative than many.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Religion is protected under the Free Exercise/Establishment Clause; not the Due Process/ Equal Protection Clause.

Really, if one religion in particular was free to practice (including marry) and the only drawback was that the federal government simply neglected to recognize their marriages (which weren't banned, but simply weren't recognized) under the law, you would litigate that under Free Exercise and not Equal Protection? I doubt it.

But regardless, under either "analysis," what is the legal basis for denying a religious group the right to legally recognized marriage under their religion's practice, just because that practice differs from 1man+1woman? If it's not "that's not what marriage means" then what is the reason?

The state has a pretty compelling reason to forbid sexual acts between adults and children: children generally lack the capacity to consent. Pedophiles absolutely are being denied equal protection of the law and for very good reason.

Precisely my point. Innateness doesn't make a trait deserving of protection; it's a red herring. Pedophiles are discriminated against (and rightly so), while Blacks and women aren't (and rightly so), even though all are "that way" due to a factor they have no control over.

So tell me, what is the "pretty compelling reason" for the state to forbid polygamy?

The innateness factor matters quite a bit.

While it doesn't necessarily have to be genetic, sexual orientation is still a largely immutable, fundamental part of who we are. So it just seems unfair in this context to deny same-sex couples a right as fundamental as marriage based on something they can't change.

So you're saying that it would be A-OK to discriminate against race so long as it was a "chosen" race, like Michael Jackson's? Would it be ok to discriminate against women, if it was only against women who used to be men?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You're missing the point. You aren't born a polygamist.

You're missing the point. You can't argue that a reason is only valid when it's for your side.

You don't have to be born a Mormon either, but they would never get away with denying your right to marry based solely on religion, converted or otherwise. And I know what you're thinking: "they can marry as long as they do it with 1man+1woman," just like homophobes argue that gays can marry as long as they do it with 1man+1woman.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm not so sure. I think levels of promiscuity are highly dependent on cultural norms that people are raised with, although there are exceptional cases. On the whole, western pop culture has grown far more accepting of promiscuity over the last 50 years, so it's no surprise that we see it more often, across gender lines - people view it as acceptable. I personally find it abhorrent and question the moral foundation of any person who chooses a promiscuous lifestyle. But then again, I suppose I'm much more socially conservative than the norm.

Not so much directed at this post but rather directed at the way the argument is developing: Polygyny is not promiscuity. It's perfectly possible to have good, solid morals and be polygynous.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Probably a fair number. It was common practice historically in China, and is common practice in some Muslim countries today.

Polyandry is much less common, but has existed in China for example.

And I would argue that the majority of those plural marriages are not consensual.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Interesting conjecture but not one I believe. What percentage of heterosexual men do you believe would want to enter into plural marriage?

99%. Give or take 1%.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

And I would argue that the majority of those plural marriages are not consensual.

Even if that were true, that doesn't mean ALL plural marriages are non-consensual. What about those that are consensual?

Furthermore, there are tons of monogamous marriages which aren't completely consensual either. Should monogamous marriages thus be banned?

I'm not advocating polygamous marriages by any means. I'm just saying that some of these arguments don't fly.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not so much directed at this post but rather directed at the way the argument is developing: Polygyny is not promiscuity. It's perfectly possible to have good, solid morals and be polygynous.

Right, I wasn't referring to the particular morality of plural wives. Most of the evidence I see strongly suggests one wife is enough for most any man to take on, however.

[OreoCookie]

The reason why polygamy is not accepted practice in most societies is simple: sheer numbers. Women constitute about half of the population, so if men were allowed to have more than one wife, other men couldn't find wives at all (unless you allow polygamy and multiple partners à la Phlox).

Personally, I also think one wife is more than enough, two would be far too stressful.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Even if that were true, that doesn't mean ALL plural marriages are non-consensual. What about those that are consensual?

Furthermore, there are tons of monogamous marriages which aren't completely consensual either. Should monogamous marriages thus be banned?

I'm not advocating polygamous marriages by any means. I'm just saying that some of these arguments don't fly.

Nowhere in any of my posts have I suggested that I don't support plural marriage. For the record, if consenting adults want to enter into that kind of legal arrangement, more power to them. I fully support it.

What I was trying to do is point out is that same-sex marriage and plural marriage are entirely different things. The only difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is that the two partners happen to share the same type of genitalia. Beyond that, the dynamics are the same. Plural marriage introduces a myriad of complexities that don't exist in binary marriage. From a legal perspective and personal perspective.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

What I was trying to do is point out is that same-sex marriage and plural marriage are entirely different things. The only difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is that the two partners happen to share the same type of genitalia. Beyond that, the dynamics are the same. Plural marriage introduces a myriad of complexities that don't exist in binary marriage. From a legal perspective and personal perspective.

Agreed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Right, I wasn't referring to the particular morality of plural wives. Most of the evidence I see strongly suggests one wife is enough for most any man to take on, however.

You're looking at it the wrong way. If 1 wife is enough "work" for you to "take on," then it would be easier to "take on" that "work" with another partner to help you do it. And on those days when you are being the "work" for them to "take on," they'll have help fussing over you properly. Of course, I personally question the moral foundation of any person who sees their partner as a burden instead of a blessing...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

What I was trying to do is point out is that same-sex marriage and plural marriage are entirely different things.

No they're not. They both require the government to keep its fat nose out of "marriage".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Most of the evidence I see strongly suggests one wife is enough for most any man to take on, however.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Personally, I also think one wife is more than enough, two would be far too stressful.

Pansies!

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Really, if one religion in particular was free to practice (including marry) and the only drawback was that the federal government simply neglected to recognize their marriages (which weren't banned, but simply weren't recognized) under the law, you would litigate that under Free Exercise and not Equal Protection?

Yes, it's solely a first amendment issue; not a fifth/fourteenth amendment issue.

Clearly an excessive entanglement problem.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But regardless, under either "analysis," what is the legal basis for denying a religious group the right to legally recognized marriage under their religion's practice, just because that practice differs from 1man+1woman? If it's not "that's not what marriage means" then what is the reason?

We don't define the fundamental right of marriage by how different religions define it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Precisely my point. Innateness doesn't make a trait deserving of protection; it's a red herring. Pedophiles are discriminated against (and rightly so), while Blacks and women aren't (and rightly so), even though all are "that way" due to a factor they have no control over.

I agree with this.

Innateness doesn't necessarily, as you rightly point out, make a trait deserving of protection.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The innateness of sexual orientation does matter in this context: consensual adult relationships.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So tell me, what is the "pretty compelling reason" for the state to forbid polygamy?

In my view, there doesn't seem to be one.

But I think discrimination based on the number of partners in a marriage is far less invidious than discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is a disparate impact discrimination problem (facially neutral policy or law; discriminatory impact) that affects FLDS adherents, but we don't recognize disparate impact arguments under the fifth/fourteenth amendments. We should.

As I said in my "Mr. Chief Justice Crook" post (Thanks, Big Mac!), it's just not one of those classifications that affect something immutable or fundamental. It's not a suspect classification. And there just doesn't seem to be any lack of reverence for laws that discriminate on the basis of the number of couples in a marriage. So for polygamy, the state should be able to come in and articulate any old reason it wants, basically, to prohibit the practice.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So you're saying that it would be A-OK to discriminate against race so long as it was a "chosen" race, like Michael Jackson's? Would it be ok to discriminate against women, if it was only against women who used to be men?

I generally don't think it's okay to discriminate based on race or sex.

That it's possible to surgically change your appearance from one race or sex to another doesn't factor into anything. What you're describing is a serious, not easily reversed surgery that is more or less permanent.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

So for polygamy, the state should be able to come in and articulate any old reason it wants, basically, to prohibit the practice.

Can't believe I read that. It appears that fascism is alive and well.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Can't believe I read that. It appears that fascism is alive and well.

I think you're rather hastily jumping to conclusions.

By "any old reason" I mean the Court should evaluate laws banning polygamy with rational basis review. I used those words because laws evaluated under that level of scrutiny are invariably upheld.

The test is applied by asking whether the governmental action at issue is a rational means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by government.

Can the state ban polygamy? Is there anything in the Constitution stopping it from doing it? (Under a DPC/EPC argument, no). Well then, it can basically have almost any old reason (short of one prohibited by the Constitution).

I'm at loss for how that's controversial.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's right. Because I believe both should be legal - and the government should shut its fat mouth on the subject.

Well, the problem here is, you're wanting two mutually exclusive things. For it to be legal, the government has to at least acknowledge legality. Conversely, for the government to shut its fat mouth on the subject, it cannot explicitly acknowledge legality.

Perhaps what you want is for it to be acknowledged as legal and THEN for the government to shut its mouth afterwards?

Sorry, feeling especially pedantic today, dunno why....

[hyteckit]

I say lets do away with marriages all together.

Marriages is such an ancient concept that doesn't make sense anymore.

[Eug]

Ads by Google, for this thread:

Gay Marriages
Planning your Wedding in Toronto? Full Service Gay Wedding Planning

Gay and Religious?
Resolve the conflict between the two and find the peace you seek.

Polygamy with Harmony
Private Exclusive Community Video, Chat, IM, Blog, Forum & more

Pro - Polygamy
Sisterwives in Unity Polygyny Chat, Meet & Blog All Free