[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm curious about the law here WRT polygamy. What specifically do you have to do for it to be illegal?

I mean, I assume you can all live together without it being against the law. Are you in trouble once you have multiple church ceremonies? What?

Multiple marriage licenses. You can go the long way around and remain legal, but it requires a sizable pile of paper.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

Marriage is a right. The language in that statement is not at all unclear.

The definition of marriage is not at all unclear. What you're referring to as marriage is not a right.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

Oh no- I got it. He now wants to back out of what he said and spin it into something else- not gonna happen. And you know what? The Supreme Court will rule in our favor for very similar reasons they did in Loving v Virginia.

I'm not the one missing anything here.

They may very well kick this right back to the States for regulation. And then... if your State decides to acknowledge this right, you'll enjoy 50% odds of paying good money to absolve yourself of it just like the rest of us. Otherwise, I'm not the one citing a source of authority on the matter only to marginalize that authority in the same sentence. Don't get upset with me that your argument is indefensible.

[Shaddim]

My bet is they will kick it back to the states, which isn't the worst thing that could happen.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

My bet is they will kick it back to the states, which isn't the worst thing that could happen.

How does that work with DOMA?

Edit: Actually just explain all of your thinking, because I don't know how you're approaching this.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They may very well kick this right back to the States for regulation. And then... if your State decides to acknowledge this right, you'll enjoy 50% odds of paying good money to absolve yourself of it just like the rest of us. Otherwise, I'm not the one citing a source of authority on the matter only to marginalize that authority in the same sentence. Don't get upset with me that your argument is indefensible.

My argument is just fine. There is no reason to deny the right of two people to marry based on race, nor is there based on gender. My argument is just fine.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Cousin marriage not a concern in a thread about gay marriage? If you have a bigger point, I'm missing it.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Do you bring this up because this is a real concern to you or are you trying to muddle the situation in hopes of stalling progress of equal recognition for marriage?

My point is that I don't think equal recognition for marriage is the concern to most here. I'd go so far as to say they'd find the ideal of polygamy or incest detestable and to be held in lower regard. Equal recognition for marriage is the culprit of muddling the situation.

So what are you saying they should do?

You know me well enough to know that I'm just not a fan of legislating at the Federal level. That's how we end up with 17 years of DOMA. The Court has also defined marriage and that definition will have to be addressed. The SCOTUS can certainly overcome these, but if they seek to equalize the recognition for marriage, it should be clear in its opinion. I'm not committed to any side of the issue, but it makes sense that the Government does not grant marriage and therefore should not be able to deny it. The problem is, it does and it has defined the criteria under which it continues to do so. Whatever they were trying to do with it isn't working and they'd have to consider mandating arranged marriages for their success rate. Therefore, If the only meritorious purpose of the Government's involvement in marriage is civil, they should be civil unions between any two of consenting age.

If they were to clarify gays and perhaps continue to exclude polygamy and/or incest... meh. Still too complicated and kind of yucky anyway.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How does that work with DOMA?

Edit: Actually just explain all of your thinking, because I don't know how you're approaching this.

I believe they, like the appellate courts, will find Section 3 unconstitutional.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What do you mean by fluid?

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that sexual orientation falls within a fluid-continuum, that it is not as rigid as simply gay or straight. Lesbians who prefer women, but women that look and act strikingly like young males or bisexuals who move back and forth between preferences, transgender straights or gays, gay people leading straight lives, or preferences still under the taboo such as children, elderly people (or older - ), relatives, animals, and then you have exclusive gays and straights who have experimented through both encounters, etc...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that sexual orientation falls within a fluid-continuum, that it is not as rigid as simply gay or straight. Lesbians who prefer women, but women that look and act strikingly like young males or bisexuals who move back and forth between preferences, transgender straights or gays, gay people leading straight lives, or preferences still under the taboo such as children, elderly people (or older - ), relatives, animals, and then you have exclusive gays and straights who have experimented through both encounters, etc...

More of a smooth continuum than race? That's pretty far-fetched.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

More of a smooth continuum than race? That's pretty far-fetched.

I disagree and believe it's at the heart of why we're still talking about this in the year 2013.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Does your disagreement come with an explanation? Does that explanation contain the word "octaroon?"

(I know that sounds sarcastic, I just can't help myself. I promise I'm legitimately confused by your stance)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Does your disagreement come with an explanation? Does that explanation contain the word "octaroon?"

I don't know, does the word octaroon exist in any legal proceeding? We're still talking jurisprudence here right? With regard to sexuality as a protected class, we're talking about a moving target. It's harder to hit protect.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that sexual orientation falls within a fluid-continuum, that it is not as rigid as simply gay or straight. Lesbians who prefer women, but women that look and act strikingly like young males or bisexuals who move back and forth between preferences, transgender straights or gays, gay people leading straight lives, or preferences still under the taboo such as children, elderly people (or older - ), relatives, animals, and then you have exclusive gays and straights who have experimented through both encounters, etc...

Maybe that's true for some people, but not me and many others. I have NEVER "experimented" with the opposite sex. Next BS argument please.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know, does the word octaroon exist in any legal proceeding? We're still talking jurisprudence here right? With regard to sexuality as a protected class, we're talking about a moving target. It's harder to hit protect.

That octaroon doesn't exist as a legally distinct entity is exactly the point: they don't/didn't have to address every/any point on the continuum, they merely recognize the entire continuum en masse. Therefore it doesn't make sense to appeal to how "fluid" the continuum is (or any other characteristic of it), merely that it exists is enough to make it analogous with race.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That octaroon doesn't exist as a legally distinct entity is exactly the point: they don't/didn't have to address every/any point on the continuum, they merely recognize the entire continuum en masse. Therefore it doesn't make sense to appeal to how "fluid" the continuum is (or any other characteristic of it), merely that it exists is enough to make it analogous with race.

They'll have to chip some off the en masse unless bestiality, necrophilia, and incest should also be analogous with race. They didn't have to address every/any point on the racial continuum because the relevant, unchanging characteristic of the individuals in question is that one is man, one is woman. A gay man can certainly marry a lesbian woman, but somehow I'd think they'd want more.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They'll have to chip some off the en masse unless bestiality, necrophilia, and incest should also be analogous with race. They didn't have to address every/any point on the racial continuum because the relevant, unchanging characteristic of the individuals in question is that one is man, one is woman. A gay man can certainly marry a lesbian woman, but somehow I'd think they'd want more.

Oh, you mean like marrying the person we love- just like you get to do?

Really, all this arguing is silly. We're winning and will eventually win it all. Good luck being angry about that the rest if your life. Two people of the same sex being married harms no one. The rest of those things you mentioned involve harm or lack of consent. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with two adults of the same sex marrying.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They'll have to chip some off the en masse unless bestiality, necrophilia, and incest should also be analogous with race.

The first two don't qualify for informed consent. Consent trumps orientation; you can't say your orientation is "unwilling" for example.

The last would be a decent point of contention if there had ever been anyone who considered incest to be their sexual orientation. As in, "I had a crush on her until I found out she wasn't my sister, then yuck." That has never happened.

[subego]

Re: Polygamy

Polygamy isn't illegal because of societal distaste for it, that's a new phenomenon. It's been legal and acceptable throughout the bulk of human history.

Polygamy is illegal because it often causes demonstrable harm to one or more of the involved parties. A criminal level of harm even.

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 don't see gay marriage causing that level of harm to the involved parties. In fact, I see so little harm caused to the involved parties, I find the analogy to be misguided to the point it borders on offensiveness.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Re: Polygamy

Polygamy isn't illegal because of societal distaste for it, that's a new phenomenon. It's been legal and acceptable throughout the bulk of human history.

Polygamy is illegal because it often causes demonstrable harm to one or more of the involved parties. A criminal level of harm even.

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 don't see gay marriage causing that level of harm to the involved parties. In fact, I see so little harm caused to the involved parties, I find the analogy to be misguided to the point it borders on offensiveness.

I'm not talking about typical "polygamy", communal marriage is a different thing entirely.

[subego]

Agreed. Sorry that wasn't clear.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The first two don't qualify for informed consent. Consent trumps orientation; you can't say your orientation is "unwilling" for example.

The last would be a decent point of contention if there had ever been anyone who considered incest to be their sexual orientation. As in, "I had a crush on her until I found out she wasn't my sister, then yuck." That has never happened.

Sexual orientation does not require that one be turned off by an experience. A gay man may find sex with women yucky, but a bisexual male would not and yet that's still a sexual orientation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Can you cite an example of anyone ever describing incest as their sexual orientation?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Can you cite an example of anyone ever describing incest as their sexual orientation?

Surely incest is far more likely to be a subset of your sexuality?

[Uncle Skeleton]

What is a subset? Can you give an example of what you mean? Like you have a thing for blondes or dimples, that type of subset?

I would expect that where incest occurs, it is merely seen as "not a negative," as opposed to what I would consider a subset or full set of one's sexuality would have to actually be seen as "a positive." Is there any appeal to incest per se beyond merely the convenience of proximity? As George Costanza explained the appeal (when talking about a french maid), "hey, it's a woman in your room." I would be interested to know if any reference was ever made in any medium, written or aural, recorded or anecdotal, real or fictional, of anyone thinking that incest was actually more appealing to them than non-incest, all other factors being equal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Can you cite an example of anyone ever describing incest as their sexual orientation?

More than octoroon is to race? Maybe not, but they can't get married.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

Maybe that's true for some people, but not me and many others. I have NEVER "experimented" with the opposite sex. Next BS argument please.

*Newsflash - YOU may not define all that is and there are many others who have. So... do you think they're yucky?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

More than octoroon is to race? Maybe not, but they can't get married.

^^^ so it's come to the chewbacca defense. You can't say how it's relevant, but you're pretty sure it's distracting, and that will have to do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Re: Polygamy

Polygamy isn't illegal because of societal distaste for it, that's a new phenomenon. It's been legal and acceptable throughout the bulk of human history.

Polygamy is illegal because it often causes demonstrable harm to one or more of the involved parties. A criminal level of harm even.

Is this when the husband goes off the deep end and kills one of his wives? I mean, what propensity for criminal harm exists in a polygamous relationship that wouldn't exist in any relationship? What information is there to suggest that a polygamous relationship is more harmful than the average monogamous relationship?

[subego]

Now I'm confused. Do you think polygamy should be legal? If not, why not?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What is a subset? Can you give an example of what you mean? Like you have a thing for blondes or dimples, that type of subset?

I would expect that where incest occurs, it is merely seen as "not a negative," as opposed to what I would consider a subset or full set of one's sexuality would have to actually be seen as "a positive." Is there any appeal to incest per se beyond merely the convenience of proximity? As George Costanza explained the appeal (when talking about a french maid), "hey, it's a woman in your room." I would be interested to know if any reference was ever made in any medium, written or aural, recorded or anecdotal, real or fictional, of anyone thinking that incest was actually more appealing to them than non-incest, all other factors being equal.

Favourite physical features could qualify as a subset but I was thinking more like straight or gay incest so incest is a subset of your orientation. I suppose if you were usually straight but would go gay for relatives then incest might not be the subset in that case but I certainly never heard of that.
The most common occurrence of incest I imagine would be father-daughter where the incest is most likely a subset of pedophilia and only a factor at all because there is easy access to a victim.
I never heard of anyone being generally attracted to their own relatives rather than to one specific relative.

There are certainly people who fantasise about it, but its more like a fetish than a sexual orientation. Strictly speaking I think any more specific sexual preferences are always subsets of either straight, gay, bi or asexual. Actually I guess asexual doesn't have any subsets.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

^^^ so it's come to the chewbacca defense. You can't say how it's relevant, but you're pretty sure it's distracting, and that will have to do.

They can't get married which IMO makes it entirely relevant. Are you picking a fight with me?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Now I'm confused. Do you think polygamy should be legal? If not, why not?

Okay, but first... why is a polygamous relationship necessarily more harmful than a monogamous relationship?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They can't get married which IMO makes it entirely relevant.

Relevant to your assertion that sexual orientation is more of a continuum than race is? Since incest is not race, and incest is not sexual orientation, it doesn't explain any difference perceived between race and sexual orientation.

Are you picking a fight with me?

No of course not! We just share the same interest in the specificity of language

[The Final Dakar]

How did this thread end up here? I thought ebuddy was cool with civil unions for all?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I believe they, like the appellate courts, will find Section 3 unconstitutional.

How does that kick it back to the states?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How did this thread end up here? I thought ebuddy was cool with civil unions for all?

He is. (Right?)
This illustrates my earlier contention that civil unions for all is a "right now" solution, while doing exactly the same thing but calling them "marriages" is only a "right" solution. Presuming it's easier to pass legislation with the ebuddies of the world than without them.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This illustrates my earlier contention that civil unions for all is a "right now" solution, while doing exactly the same thing but calling them "marriages" is only a "right" solution. Presuming it's easier to pass legislation with the ebuddies of the world than without them.

What is the illustration?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ebuddy is the illustration. I said there are people that take that position, and he's taking that position.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ebuddy is the illustration. I said there are people that take that position, and he's taking that position.

I'm trying to tread cautiously here. Because what i see doesn't support your contention – a person who previously (I believe) supported civil unions for all seems to be working really hard to discrediting the idea of gay unions. It leaves me with the feeling that if there was a rubber meets the road moment where he had a vote, he couldn't bring himself to support them.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My point is that I don't think equal recognition for marriage is the concern to most here. I'd go so far as to say they'd find the ideal of polygamy or incest detestable and to be held in lower regard. Equal recognition for marriage is the culprit of muddling the situation.

Uh huh. So you're trying to create a strawman all-or-nothing situation, betting that given a choice people would choose the latter.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You know me well enough to know that I'm just not a fan of legislating at the Federal level. That's how we end up with 17 years of DOMA.

DOMA sucks, but the real barrier to entry is the states themselves.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Court has also defined marriage and that definition will have to be addressed. The SCOTUS can certainly overcome these, but if they seek to equalize the recognition for marriage, it should be clear in its opinion. I'm not committed to any side of the issue, but it makes sense that the Government does not grant marriage and therefore should not be able to deny it. The problem is, it does and it has defined the criteria under which it continues to do so.

What I'm reading is, the way government handles marriage they have no legal recourse for discrimination. I agree. Shame our solutions don't match.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Whatever they were trying to do with it isn't working and they'd have to consider mandating arranged marriages for their success rate.

If you don't know what they were trying to do, how do you know if its working?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Therefore, If the only meritorious purpose of the Government's involvement in marriage is civil, they should be civil unions between any two of consenting age.

How about we call it civil marriage?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm trying to tread cautiously here. Because what i see doesn't support your contention – a person who previously (I believe) supported civil unions for all seems to be working really hard to discrediting the idea of gay unions. It leaves me with the feeling that if there was a rubber meets the road moment where he had a vote, he couldn't bring himself to support them.

His position has been consistent for as long as I remember, as long as you acknowledge the distinction between "civil union" and "marriage," even if in name only. Why are you rejecting this distinction?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

His position has been consistent for as long as I remember, as long as you acknowledge the distinction between "civil union" and "marriage," even if in name only. Why are you rejecting this distinction?

I don't think I reject the distinction. I'm pointing out he supports unions, while at the same time trying to lump the gays in with polygamists and the incestuous. Unless he really believes these people should be able to get "unionized" I find his argument set-up to undermine those he supposedly supports.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Unless he really believes these people should be able to get "unionized" I find his argument set-up to undermine those he supposedly supports.

Why wouldn't he be ok with these people being able to get "unionized?" The whole point of unions was to sandbox the non-traditional relationships away from "real" marriage. If one supports that endeavor (despite being homophobic), then it doesn't matter how one feels about polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever, because whatever it is will be confined to the civil union sandbox. Anything goes in the sandbox, if you still cared for the morality of what goes on in there (and you thought gay marriage was immoral), you wouldn't have bought in to the idea in the first place. From the traditionalist point of view, it's all totally consistent. The sandbox is the progressive's chance to let their agenda fully play out. If it all works out, great it's live and let live, progressives will be responsible for keeping the sandbox moral, and the traditionalists still have "marriage" as a refuge. If the sandbox goes off the rails, well then that proves the progressive agenda wrong. For the traditionalist, the sandbox is win-win, and there's nothing to be gained by interfering with it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why wouldn't he be ok with these people being able to get "unionized?"

You'd have to ask him. So far he post-poned the inquiry by subego.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The whole point of unions was to sandbox the non-traditional relationships away from "real" marriage. If one supports that endeavor (despite being homophobic), then it doesn't matter how one feels about polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever, because whatever it is will be confined to the civil union sandbox. Anything goes in the sandbox, if you still cared for the morality of what goes on in there (and you thought gay marriage was immoral), you wouldn't have bought in to the idea in the first place. From the traditionalist point of view, it's all totally consistent. The sandbox is the progressive's chance to let their agenda fully play out. If it all works out, great it's live and let live, progressives will be responsible for keeping the sandbox moral, and the traditionalists still have "marriage" as a refuge. If the sandbox goes off the rails, well then that proves the progressive agenda wrong. For the traditionalist, the sandbox is win-win, and there's nothing to be gained by interfering with it.

Sure there is – part of the reason people fight even against civil unions is because recognizing those same-sex partnerships is seen as legitimizing and accepting that lifestyle.

As for the rest, we're still talking govt. unions even for straights, and religious marriages for gays if the church will allow it, right? Because those lines get real blurry to me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'd have to ask him. So far he post-poned the inquiry by subego.

I don't see any reason for him to oppose it, and frankly I'm more curious about subego's answer than ebuddy's.

Sure there is – part of the reason people fight even against civil unions is because recognizing those same-sex partnerships is seen as legitimizing and accepting that lifestyle.

But he's not fighting against civil unions, so I don't know why you think that's relevant.

As for the rest, we're still talking govt. unions even for straights, and religious marriages for gays if the church will allow it, right? Because those lines get real blurry to me.

It's only blurry if you want it to be blurry. That's why I asked why you were rejecting the distinction, and you said you weren't. It sure seems like you are.

The only reason I can see for confusion is if you can't figure out why conservatives would settle for winning only the word, and not the (official) status. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't see any reason for him to oppose it, and frankly I'm more curious about subego's answer than ebuddy's.

Perhaps you're right, but I won't take ebuddy's answer as a given.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's only blurry if you want it to be blurry. That's why I asked why you were rejecting the distinction, and you said you weren't. It sure seems like you are.

I was accepting his distinction on accepting civil unions. What was the question again?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The only reason I can see for confusion is if you can't figure out why conservatives would settle for winning only the word, and not the (official) status. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?

Wouldn't they be losing the word (everyone is going to call it a marriage anyway) and winning the official status ("It's a civil union not a marriage!")

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't see any reason for him to oppose it, and frankly I'm more curious about subego's answer than ebuddy's.



But he's not fighting against civil unions, so I don't know why you think that's relevant.



It's only blurry if you want it to be blurry. That's why I asked why you were rejecting the distinction, and you said you weren't. It sure seems like you are.

The only reason I can see for confusion is if you can't figure out why conservatives would settle for winning only the word, and not the (official) status. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?

My stance is that for everyone to truly be equal, the government should not use any factor but age of consent to decide who and who cannot get hitched. Use a politically correct term such as civil union to appease all groups, then let the couples decide what to call themselves. If they want to say they're married go for it, but in the government's eyes everyone has a civil union.

You can call it whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and in the confines of your own church/temple/popsicle stand.

"Yeah, Sheila and me were baconated 2 years ago. All i had to do was sign the civil union certificate from the courthouse"

Or

"Yeah, Ron and John got hitched at the new church that just opened up, all they had to do was sign the civil union certificate they got from the courthouse"

Or even

"Yeah, Jim and Bob got married at their church. All they had to do was sign a civil union certificate they got from the courthouse"


See? Works in any situation. You don't like my life choices then you pick a church/temple/gazebo that agrees with yours, and I'll do the same. Live and let live. Mr. Gov't then doesn't have a say what you do in your private life. He only makes sure you're treated equally under the law.

Disclaimer: I support gay marriage - I just believe the government's role is the only issue to be discussed/resolved in this debate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay, but first... why is a polygamous relationship necessarily more harmful than a monogamous relationship?

Cast iron frying pans.

As in, "that's what ebuddy would get upside his head from Mrs. ebuddy if he ever tried to float that question past her". Very harmful.

Now, as much as I sympathize with your better half for wanting to haul-out on you with the skillet for asking the question, I'll merely say "inherent lack of equality" and leave it at that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Cast iron frying pans.

As in, "that's what ebuddy would get upside his head from Mrs. ebuddy if he ever tried to float that question past her". Very harmful.

Now, as much as I sympathize with your better half for wanting to haul-out on you with the skillet for asking the question, I'll merely say "inherent lack of equality" and leave it at that.

Wait, I have to actually live the scenario to opine? And drag my wife into it? Uh oh. I don't go looking for it, don't endorse it, couldn't bring myself to qualify if I had even found it, and I am otherwise free of Tourette's syndrome.

Let's consider the present failure rate of our current situation for perspective. You don't suppose at least some of these bizarre situations are consensual? What business is it of ours ultimately? What about the tuna, in dolphin-free tuna?

Why doesn't anyone champion the tuna?