Go Back   The Liberty Lounge Political Forums > Liberty Lounge Discussions > The Floor

Political Forum Click HERE to register your free account and become a member of our community today!
Register to Post a Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-18-2012, 07:55 AM   #1
Member

Progressive
Oklahoma
notquiteright is an enemy combatant

same sex news

Gov Christie, with a possible eye on a 2016 Presidential run vetoed New Jersey's same sex marriage law. With the current rabidly 'anti' mood in the GOP right wing, as seen by the attacks on Romney for comprehensive healthcare reform, Christie would do well politically to not be tagged as the Republican candidate who 'approved' of gay rights. While he decided many issues affecting many more citizens of New Jersey he feels the same sex issue should be a vote of the people.

nice dodge

The Maryland assembly has approved a same sex marriage law, joining the states that feel ALL men are created equal.

As an aside, a hardline, hard right 'conservative' that no longer has to pander to the base for a spot at the public trough, former VP Cheney, has endorsed the idea of same sex marriage over civil unions.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-18-2012, 12:33 PM   #2
No longer cares, bye
 
The Great Catpiss's Avatar

Classic Liberal
Socal
The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!

Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
...states that feel ALL men are created equal...
You had to throw that in, making false implications.

"Men have the right to marry women" is not equal to "Men have the right to marry men."

If all men were created equal then they would all be born gay or none would be born gay.

And before you make assumptions:
I feel that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else, and the government should stay out of it.
__________________
"If people weren't so hypocritical, they would donate more of their time and their money to directly help their causes. Instead they want the government to force me to give them my time and my money." - Catpiss, The Great
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-18-2012, 09:14 PM   #3
Member

Progressive
Oklahoma
notquiteright is an enemy combatant

Your 'argument' is invalid.

The equal doesn't apply to sexual orientation, religion, racial backround, but rather that life, liberty and pursuit thing...

Your 'logic' can claim only white landholders have the right to the big three.

Oh I didn't assume you hated gays, you merely are a troll of late, puffing up on my posts to be contrary.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-18-2012, 10:39 PM   #4
No longer cares, bye
 
The Great Catpiss's Avatar

Classic Liberal
Socal
The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!

Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
Your 'logic' can claim only white landholders have the right to the big three.
WTF you talkin bout Willis?
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-20-2012, 10:44 PM   #5
Capitalism Sucks!
 
WolfLarsen's Avatar

Independent
WolfLarsen has political potential

I feel that the governor of New Jersey is a very bad person for vetoing the rights of gays to marry. It may have been good for his political career. So what! The right thing to do is to support gay marriage!

I don't much care for Christie as governor. I think he should work at McDonald's instead. I think he would make an excellent hamburger flipper.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 01:36 AM   #6
No longer cares, bye
 
The Great Catpiss's Avatar

Classic Liberal
Socal
The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen View Post
I think he should work at McDonald's instead. I think he would make an excellent hamburger flipper.
I wouldn't belittle any of the hard workers of McDonald's like that. I am surprised you would.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 06:25 AM   #7
Member

Progressive
Oklahoma
notquiteright is an enemy combatant

Willful ignorance? The true face of Libertarians?

Was under the impression less government is more for that crowd. The rights of the individual as long as it harms no other, supercede government intrusion.

Your logic is what backed the now discarded blue laws dictating what sex acts a married heterosexual couple could use in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Its legal as long as it is missionary...

Or the ban on interracial marriage, its equal as long as the race is the same.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 10:34 AM   #8
No longer cares, bye
 
The Great Catpiss's Avatar

Classic Liberal
Socal
The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!

Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
Willful ignorance?
Too much irony
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 11:06 AM   #9
Political Genius
 
WickedLou9's Avatar

Democrat
South Jersey
WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss View Post
You had to throw that in, making false implications.

"Men have the right to marry women" is not equal to "Men have the right to marry men."

If all men were created equal then they would all be born gay or none would be born gay.

And before you make assumptions:
I feel that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else, and the government should stay out of it.
"All men are created equal" isn't a law. It's just a statement of values or beliefs.

The "equal protection under the law" clause is a much stronger argument to make, and it's the same argument that finally vanquished "separate but equal" laws.

Also, Citizens of the US ( I will not use the word "men" lest it be confused to imply that only males have rights) all have the right to marry another willing human being of thier choosing, so long as the agreement is mutual. The government should not be in the business of match making. Two human beings able to give legal consent is all that should be required. If government is going to grant rights and status to people who are married, it can not prevent a certain group from marrying lest it violate the equal protection clause. this should be obvious to anyone.

The arguments around "sanctity" and "gods intentions" surrounding marriage are all well and good but they have no place in government. Our constitution prohibits it.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 11:07 AM   #10
Political Genius
 
WickedLou9's Avatar

Democrat
South Jersey
WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby View Post
It is equal. Gay men can marry women just as much as straight men can. The law doesn't care if you're homosexual or not. You can qualify for a marriage license so long as it's one man and one woman. they can both be gay even.
You can have any job you want, just so long as it's on the list of government approved professions.

What a horrible argument.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 11:22 AM   #11
Member of the Bar
 
The Esteemed Gentleman's Avatar

Federalist
The Esteemed Gentleman Has a place in history!The Esteemed Gentleman Has a place in history!The Esteemed Gentleman Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen View Post
I feel that the governor of New Jersey is a very bad person for vetoing the rights of gays to marry. It may have been good for his political career. So what! The right thing to do is to support gay marriage!
Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
The Maryland assembly has approved a same sex marriage law, joining the states that feel ALL men are created equal.
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 View Post
The "equal protection under the law" clause is a much stronger argument to make, and it's the same argument that finally vanquished "separate but equal" laws.

Also, Citizens of the US ( I will not use the word "men" lest it be confused to imply that only males have rights) all have the right to marry another willing human being of thier choosing, so long as the agreement is mutual. The government should not be in the business of match making. Two human beings able to give legal consent is all that should be required. If government is going to grant rights and status to people who are married, it can not prevent a certain group from marrying lest it violate the equal protection clause. this should be obvious to anyone.
So based on your implied arguments, you all support rights for polygamists to marry as many partners as they want? They are still discriminated against because they are only allowed to marry one of the people they love, rather than all the people they love. Why should marriage only be between 2 people? That is just as arbitrary as saying it must be between man and woman, and just as discriminatory. I take it you all also believe in the rights of incestuous partners to marry immediate family members? They obviously can't marry who they love, either, and after all, the argument is about equality under the law and not what we think about their lifestyles, right? Who are we to tell them they can't marry an immediate family member they love if they have the legal capacity to marry? That is just as discriminatory and arbitrary as dictating what gender or race or the number of partners you can marry.

I'd think about your answers' logic carefully before responding.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 01:27 PM   #12
No longer cares, bye
 
The Great Catpiss's Avatar

Classic Liberal
Socal
The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman View Post
So based on your implied arguments, you all support rights for polygamists to marry as many partners as they want?
I support it.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9 View Post
You can have any job you want, just so long as it's on the list of government approved professions.

What a horrible argument.
His argument was spot on. Your's is a mess.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 01:49 PM   #13
Political Genius
 
WickedLou9's Avatar

Democrat
South Jersey
WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman View Post
So based on your implied arguments, you all support rights for polygamists to marry as many partners as they want? They are still discriminated against because they are only allowed to marry one of the people they love, rather than all the people they love. Why should marriage only be between 2 people? That is just as arbitrary as saying it must be between man and woman, and just as discriminatory. I take it you all also believe in the rights of incestuous partners to marry immediate family members? They obviously can't marry who they love, either, and after all, the argument is about equality under the law and not what we think about their lifestyles, right? Who are we to tell them they can't marry an immediate family member they love if they have the legal capacity to marry? That is just as discriminatory and arbitrary as dictating what gender or race or the number of partners you can marry.

I'd think about your answers' logic carefully before responding.
They are all good questions and ones that are not new to me.

I think we need to make logical distinctions between marriage in the church and the rights granted by the state to people who are married.

Marriage in the church is not a part of this conversation. Churches can marry anyone they want to or refuse to marry anyone they don't want to. That's up to them and that right is protected.

The question really is, why does the state grant certain benefits and rights to married couples? What are those rights? Why would we withhold these rights from some people and not for others?

I think the why is easy:Why do these laws exist? Because it's beneficial to society to treat a married couple as a single unit. Married couples can't be compelled to testify against one another. They can file taxes jointly (and at different rates). They have visitation rights and can make medical decisions for their spouse. Rights of survivorship. A spouse gets everything when their other dies. ( unless there is some sort of will that specifies otherwise). I don't know the entire universe of applicable laws but there are many to be certain.

re: Polygamy... how would you transpose these rights into a group of 10 or 20 people? Who gets the right to make medical decisions for the spouse when there are 20 people involved? What if 5 wives want to pull the plug and 5 want to keep the husband on life support? What do you do? Can you file a joint return with 20 people? Is that more like a corporation then? What about testifying? You now have a group of 20 people who can all engage in a criminal conspiracy and we can't ask any of them to testify. These are just a few things I came up with off the top of my head. There are real complications that arise once you have more than 2 people involved. The reason that the rights were granted in the first place don't really apply to groups of people the way they apply to a single "family unit".


There is really no reason that we shouldn't let a brother and sister get married legally speaking. There are biological "inhibitors" built into most of us that prevent that sort of thing. Siblings generally don't want to get married because they find the idea repulsive. That is built into us, it's not a choice. Certainly there have been cases where siblings get married anyway ,throughout history it has happened. Especially in rural areas where potential mates are limited. Generally speaking as a society the idea repulses us so it's just a matter that it's a right no one is really asking for. There is no large group of "sibling lovers" demanding rights to marry so government is not forced to act. There is no real group of people demanding these rights.

So the rights we do grant, we grant for a reason. That reasoning applied to a man and a woman of any race, two men of any race, or two women of any race. Any two human beings living together as a family unit fulfill the basic requirements that these laws were aimed at. However, we are currently withholding rights from some group of people who would otherwise qualify. And unlike the case with siblings, there is a large group of people who want these rights. Gay couples do not pose any legal complications above and beyond those already posed by hetero couples. Polygamists would need their own set of laws.

The "lazy" way out of all of this is simply to say that government shouldn't be providing any special treatment to anyone, regardless of being married or not and then all of the questions raised here become moot. Ron Paul would like that answer.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 03:18 PM   #14
Member of the Bar
 
The Esteemed Gentleman's Avatar

Federalist
The Esteemed Gentleman Has a place in history!The Esteemed Gentleman Has a place in history!The Esteemed Gentleman Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by WickedLou9 View Post
I think we need to make logical distinctions between marriage in the church and the rights granted by the state to people who are married. Marriage in the church is not a part of this conversation. Churches can marry anyone they want to or refuse to marry anyone they don't want to. That's up to them and that right is protected.
I did not mention religious institutions in my post, but as a general matter I agree with you as a matter of opinion and fact.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9 View Post
The question really is, why does the state grant certain benefits and rights to married couples? What are those rights? Why would we withhold these rights from some people and not for others?
Rights and benefits are not necessarily the same thing. For example, the "right" to get married does not necessarily confer a "right" to file taxes jointly, although the government confers that "benefit" - a benefit which can be taken away by Congress or state legislatures whenever they see fit. We should keep those distinctions in mind as we go forward.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9 View Post
I think the why is easy:Why do these laws exist? Because it's beneficial to society to treat a married couple as a single unit. Married couples can't be compelled to testify against one another. They can file taxes jointly (and at different rates). They have visitation rights and can make medical decisions for their spouse. Rights of survivorship. A spouse gets everything when their other dies. ( unless there is some sort of will that specifies otherwise). I don't know the entire universe of applicable laws but there are many to be certain.
This isn't all necessarily true. Different jurisdictions have different rules, and not all jurisdictions come to the same conclusions as you suggest. For example, spouses can be compelled to testify against each other in federal civil cases. And even in criminal cases, depending on the jurisdiction, spousal privilege might only apply to things that actually occurred or were said during the marriage that were confidential (ie, if it happened before they were married, or if a third person was known to be present, the privilege doesn't apply). A second example concerns rights of survivorship: to what exactly? Real Property? Only if owned in tenancy by the entirety, or in joint tenancy, or if domiciled in a community property jurisdiction. Personal property maybe, if jointly owned, or if willed, or if a state's intestacy statute gives the surviving spouse rights to the property (which isn't always true). So again, it depends. This further lends credit to the argument that benefits of a marriage are not necessarily rights, but rather defined "bonuses" that the government can give and take away, and not vested "rights" of marriage.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9 View Post
re: Polygamy... how would you transpose these rights into a group of 10 or 20 people? Who gets the right to make medical decisions for the spouse when there are 20 people involved? What if 5 wives want to pull the plug and 5 want to keep the husband on life support? What do you do? Can you file a joint return with 20 people? Is that more like a corporation then? What about testifying? You now have a group of 20 people who can all engage in a criminal conspiracy and we can't ask any of them to testify. These are just a few things I came up with off the top of my head. There are real complications that arise once you have more than 2 people involved. The reason that the rights were granted in the first place don't really apply to groups of people the way they apply to a single "family unit".
So wait...these rights can apply to a "family unit" but just not a family unit that consists of more than 2 people? I'm not so sure that's correct. Further, you are arguing against alleged "rights" you earlier stated existed (or should exist) for consenting adults because those rights would be difficult to implement and enforce? I think you recognize the weakness in such an argument. Nothing you listed above could not be constructively demystified via appropriate study and legislation. Would it be perfect? Maybe not, but imperfection is a bad reason to deny people their fundamental rights to marriage under the Constitution, is it not? And regarding the criminal conspiracy, what is the end-difference if the conspiracy consists of just 2 people that can't testify against each other, or 20? The end difference is the same, so again, the argument really isn't persuasive.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9 View Post
There is really no reason that we shouldn't let a brother and sister get married legally speaking.
I know, which is why I brought it up. Objectively speaking, there is no way to deny such rights, especially using the standard propounded by advocates of gay marriage (consenting adults with legal capacity to marry should be able to marry any person of their choice). And as noted above, there is really no sound legal or philosophical reason to limit marriage to simply two people.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9 View Post
There are biological "inhibitors" built into most of us that prevent that sort of thing. Siblings generally don't want to get married because they find the idea repulsive. That is built into us, it's not a choice.
Is it, or is it such a social norm/societal taboo that is drilled into us that we just accept it as repulsive? (Note: I tend to agree with you, but I think my question has some merit.)

Originally Posted by WickedLou9 View Post
Generally speaking as a society the idea repulses us so it's just a matter that it's a right no one is really asking for. There is no large group of "sibling lovers" demanding rights to marry so government is not forced to act. There is no real group of people demanding these rights.
So your point here is that government can deny certain groups rights so long as they do not, nor anyone on their behalf, or an insufficient number of people, demand those rights and equality? I'm not sure that is a good argument.

For the record, I am for legalizing gay marriage. I think marriage should be between two people. And I am against legalizing incestuous marriage. My point in challenging the liberal dogma on this issue is that (a) liberals have no real legal or philosophical dividing line that prevents the slippery slope from marriage being between a man and a woman to marriage being between two men or two women to marriage being a free-for-all of consenting adults; and (b) any moral, legal, or philosophical argument in favor of gay marriage can pretty easily be used to argue for incestuous relationships and multiple-partner relationships, which supporters of gay marriage often oppose. You made a good effort in arguing that the practical implementation of polygamy would be rather difficult, but I think my counterpoint that just because rights are "difficult" to enforce does not mean the rights should not be enforced. And while you are correct that social and natural inhibitors make incest a mostly non issue, just because there are few people demanding such rights does not make the rights less valid under the Constitution.

The problem is the hyperbolic language used (on both sides) when discussing marriage and "marriage equality." As soon as you define what it is, you automatically define and exclude what it is not - and what it is not will necessarily and automatically prohibit certain consenting adults with legal capacity from exercising their "right" to marriage and to enter in to union with a partner (or partners) of their choice, and thus deny them the "benefits" bestowed on everyone who is "married." By using the broad language of the left, this creates a critical problem regarding the state's ability to define what marriage is, what it is not, and what it's benefits are, and what benefits may be bestowed or taken away, etc.

Then of course you have the complete hypocrisy of those who call defenders of traditional marriage "bigots" and the irony that they, more often than not, seek to deny polygamists and incestuous partners the same rights they seek to cloak themselves in. (Usually the argument descends rapidly into arguments about allowing people to marry beasts and animals, which is easily dismissed (whether raised from the right or left) by noting beasts are not human and cannot give legal consent.)

In short, this is an issue with future long-lasting repercussions based on an analysis that is not thoroughly thought through by either side.

Last edited by The Esteemed Gentleman; 02-21-2012 at 03:25 PM..
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-21-2012, 03:57 PM   #15
Political Genius
 
WickedLou9's Avatar

Democrat
South Jersey
WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!WickedLou9 Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman View Post
I did not mention religious institutions in my post, but as a general matter I agree with you as a matter of opinion and fact.



Rights and benefits are not necessarily the same thing. For example, the "right" to get married does not necessarily confer a "right" to file taxes jointly, although the government confers that "benefit" - a benefit which can be taken away by Congress or state legislatures whenever they see fit. We should keep those distinctions in mind as we go forward.



This isn't all necessarily true. Different jurisdictions have different rules, and not all jurisdictions come to the same conclusions as you suggest. For example, spouses can be compelled to testify against each other in federal civil cases. And even in criminal cases, depending on the jurisdiction, spousal privilege might only apply to things that actually occurred or were said during the marriage that were confidential (ie, if it happened before they were married, or if a third person was known to be present, the privilege doesn't apply). A second example concerns rights of survivorship: to what exactly? Real Property? Only if owned in tenancy by the entirety, or in joint tenancy, or if domiciled in a community property jurisdiction. Personal property maybe, if jointly owned, or if willed, or if a state's intestacy statute gives the surviving spouse rights to the property (which isn't always true). So again, it depends. This further lends credit to the argument that benefits of a marriage are not necessarily rights, but rather defined "bonuses" that the government can give and take away, and not vested "rights" of marriage.



So wait...these rights can apply to a "family unit" but just not a family unit that consists of more than 2 people? I'm not so sure that's correct. Further, you are arguing against alleged "rights" you earlier stated existed (or should exist) for consenting adults because those rights would be difficult to implement and enforce? I think you recognize the weakness in such an argument. Nothing you listed above could not be constructively demystified via appropriate study and legislation. Would it be perfect? Maybe not, but imperfection is a bad reason to deny people their fundamental rights to marriage under the Constitution, is it not? And regarding the criminal conspiracy, what is the end-difference if the conspiracy consists of just 2 people that can't testify against each other, or 20? The end difference is the same, so again, the argument really isn't persuasive.



I know, which is why I brought it up. Objectively speaking, there is no way to deny such rights, especially using the standard propounded by advocates of gay marriage (consenting adults with legal capacity to marry should be able to marry any person of their choice). And as noted above, there is really no sound legal or philosophical reason to limit marriage to simply two people.



Is it, or is it such a social norm/societal taboo that is drilled into us that we just accept it as repulsive? (Note: I tend to agree with you, but I think my question has some merit.)



So your point here is that government can deny certain groups rights so long as they do not, nor anyone on their behalf, or an insufficient number of people, demand those rights and equality? I'm not sure that is a good argument.

For the record, I am for legalizing gay marriage. I think marriage should be between two people. And I am against legalizing incestuous marriage. My point in challenging the liberal dogma on this issue is that (a) liberals have no real legal or philosophical dividing line that prevents the slippery slope from marriage being between a man and a woman to marriage being between two men or two women to marriage being a free-for-all of consenting adults; and (b) any moral, legal, or philosophical argument in favor of gay marriage can pretty easily be used to argue for incestuous relationships and multiple-partner relationships, which supporters of gay marriage often oppose. You made a good effort in arguing that the practical implementation of polygamy would be rather difficult, but I think my counterpoint that just because rights are "difficult" to enforce does not mean the rights should not be enforced. And while you are correct that social and natural inhibitors make incest a mostly non issue, just because there are few people demanding such rights does not make the rights less valid under the Constitution.

The problem is the hyperbolic language used (on both sides) when discussing marriage and "marriage equality." As soon as you define what it is, you automatically define and exclude what it is not - and what it is not will necessarily and automatically prohibit certain consenting adults with legal capacity from exercising their "right" to marriage and to enter in to union with a partner (or partners) of their choice, and thus deny them the "benefits" bestowed on everyone who is "married." By using the broad language of the left, this creates a critical problem regarding the state's ability to define what marriage is, what it is not, and what it's benefits are, and what benefits may be bestowed or taken away, etc.

Then of course you have the complete hypocrisy of those who call defenders of traditional marriage "bigots" and the irony that they, more often than not, seek to deny polygamists and incestuous partners the same rights they seek to cloak themselves in. (Usually the argument descends rapidly into arguments about allowing people to marry beasts and animals, which is easily dismissed (whether raised from the right or left) by noting beasts are not human and cannot give legal consent.)

In short, this is an issue with future long-lasting repercussions based on an analysis that is not thoroughly thought through by either side.
I don't really disagree with any of this. It's a very complicated issue once you get down into the weeds of it. I think gay marriage fits more neatly into the existing social fabric and legal framework than polygamy does, so it's easier to just do it.

I look at it from 2 ways. There is the very practical stuff and then there is the philosophical/rational argument which is much more complicated. from a philosophical standpoint, we are doing things all wrong and we should treat all people equally. We should totally redesign our entire legal framework to support this.

Practically speaking, to do something like this would take a monumental effort in a country so divided that it would simply never happen. Gay marriage is something we can do with relatively little effort. Since we can incrementally improve things with relatively small cost and effort, we should do it. We can't get all the way there, but certainly we can take steps in the right direction.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-22-2012, 02:36 PM   #16
Member

Progressive
Oklahoma
notquiteright is an enemy combatant

I see this as yet another social issue to be worked on as the situation arises. You build a bridge on the banks of the river blocking your way, not over flat ground.

Once inter-racial marriage was illegal.

Now it is not.

Now a majority of Americans either agree same sex marriage is acceptable or a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Perhaps someday a majority will consider polygamy as acceptable or a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

But let us build that bridge when we reach that river.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-22-2012, 10:36 PM   #17
Capitalism Sucks!
 
WolfLarsen's Avatar

Independent
WolfLarsen has political potential

Somebody asked if polygamous marriage should be legal. Why not? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

Can I marry my right hand now?
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-22-2012, 11:30 PM   #18
No longer cares, bye
 
The Great Catpiss's Avatar

Classic Liberal
Socal
The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!The Great Catpiss is the Vice President!

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen View Post
Somebody asked if polygamous marriage should be legal. Why not? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

Can I marry my right hand now?
I think the neighbor's dog might get upset.

Last edited by The Great Catpiss; 02-23-2012 at 12:48 AM.. Reason: added link for reference
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-22-2012, 11:52 PM   #19
Member
 
meatwadisprez's Avatar

libertarian
Michigan
meatwadisprez has a spectacular aura about them

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss View Post
I think the neighbor's dog might get upset.
Well played, sir.
__________________
"Give me back my face!"-Rorschach
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 02-23-2012, 01:01 AM   #20
Member of the Bar
 
The Esteemed Gentleman's Avatar

Federalist
The Esteemed Gentleman Has a place in history!The Esteemed Gentleman Has a place in history!The Esteemed Gentleman Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss View Post
I think the neighbor's dog might get upset.
ABSOLUTELY
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Register to Post a Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back   The Liberty Lounge Political Forums > Liberty Lounge Discussions > The Floor



Thread Tools



SEO by vBSEO

vBulletin 3.7.4 -- Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Custom Artwork and Theme (TM) 2006, Liberty Lounge