Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby TooMuchBaijiu » Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:54 am

Well, homosexuals comprise of anywhere between 1 to 5 % of the population, whereas far as I know the only people really out to legalize polygamous unions are so few in number there's really no real threat of it happening in any case. Certainly, they're welcome to try...
I don't write fanfic, but if I did it would involve Zhou Yu and Zheng He fighting to win the heart of Lai Choi San. Then I'd make them join forces to fight Ming the Merciless, who secretly works for Master Li. I'd squeeze Lu Bu in there somehow.
User avatar
TooMuchBaijiu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:15 am
Location: In 1939, chasing Frida Kahlo with a Gillette

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:47 am

TooMuchBaijiu wrote:Well, homosexuals comprise of anywhere between 1 to 5 % of the population, whereas far as I know the only people really out to legalize polygamous unions are so few in number there's really no real threat of it happening in any case. Certainly, they're welcome to try...


I don't think the numbers really matter, but what kind of legal stance they can take on the issue.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby TooMuchBaijiu » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:43 pm

Maybe not from a legal/ethical standpoint, but it's been my experience that the laws are made or thrown out not by how convincing your argument is, but by how much pressure you can apply on the court and society as a whole. I do not think polygamists have enough political power or influence to make those kinds of changes, and don't make enough of an impact on society (by nature most polygamists stay out of the way) to get people to sympathize with their cause.

To tell you the truth, I used to be against gay marriage myself until I really got acquainted with homosexuals and learned that they came in all kinds of shapes and sizes and that they were otherwise ordinary people. I don't believe, however, that polygamists with their highly religious backgrounds (one seen as heretical by the majority of the American population) and their deliberate separation with mainstream society will ever achieve the kind of social integration necessary for them to get that kind of sympathy. But again, they're welcome to try. But what legal points could they make to justify their proposal?
I don't write fanfic, but if I did it would involve Zhou Yu and Zheng He fighting to win the heart of Lai Choi San. Then I'd make them join forces to fight Ming the Merciless, who secretly works for Master Li. I'd squeeze Lu Bu in there somehow.
User avatar
TooMuchBaijiu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:15 am
Location: In 1939, chasing Frida Kahlo with a Gillette

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby James » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:07 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:While I understand, and to a large extent, agree with your distaste of their use of the 'slippery slope' argument. It isn't entirely without merit, however not in the context of hate-mongering they wish to use it. If homosexual marriage is allowed, you can expect to see challenges mounted in support of polygamous unions as well.

Well—there's a difference between ludicrous arguments which compare things like bestiality and homosexual marriage (a stupid statement like this only serves to highlight how ignorant and bigoted the speaker is) and something like polygamy and homosexual marriage. Polygamy, at face value (a marriage which includes a person of one sex and multiple people of another—although we can simply define it as a man and multiple women) actually represents no offense. Nobody is harmed. In theory, it should actually allow a family to better support their children. What's all screwed up about it is the other elements which tend to go hand in hand with it wherever it is practiced (e.g. underage and forced marriage, incest, sexual discrimination). People don't like it for various reasons (usually social or religious) but at least they have some ground to stand on in presenting an argument.

But even here there's a strong disconnect. The freedom requested in honoring polygamy, independently a luxury wanted people, does not compare to an entire category of persons who have been restricted of rights afforded everyone else.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17999
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Patricoo » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:50 pm

Not really related to polygamists, but what the hell. Its a thought and I'll go with it.

TooMuchBaijiu wrote:Well, homosexuals comprise of anywhere between 1 to 5 % of the population...


Just for reference sake, the number bounces between 2-3% when the question involves people who define themselves as homosexual and can shoot up to 8% when studies try to include people who do... how should I say... "gay things." Hey, sometimes the question "Are you gay?" is hard to ask.

Regardless, the point should be that this group is a super minority which has, generally speaking, its own culture. Gay rights groups sometimes feel the need to be loud, obnoxious, and in-your-face in a deliberate attempt to get noticed and heard. Its not that they are those things, is that the groups often think this is the best method to gain attention. Its more damaging, really. Its very rare that anyone gains acceptance in any circle for any reason by touting the phrase 'Deal with it.'
"Yey and did Fonzi downstairs cometh from his apartment from above the garage. And sayeth he, 'Reassembeleth will I, the pieces of my motorcycle, though I suffereth from temporary blindness. And yey for I am holy. Amen."
User avatar
Patricoo
Langzhong
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 2:37 pm
Location: Everywhere between Harrisburg and Philadelphia

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:46 pm

TooMuchBaijiu wrote:Maybe not from a legal/ethical standpoint, but it's been my experience that the laws are made or thrown out not by how convincing your argument is, but by how much pressure you can apply on the court and society as a whole. I do not think polygamists have enough political power or influence to make those kinds of changes, and don't make enough of an impact on society (by nature most polygamists stay out of the way) to get people to sympathize with their cause.


Anti-Segregation and Anti-miscegenation laws may say differently. It could be argued that the Court was highly pressed not to allow those. But either way, I was only speaking from a legal standpoint...as that would be next logical step.

To tell you the truth, I used to be against gay marriage myself until I really got acquainted with homosexuals and learned that they came in all kinds of shapes and sizes and that they were otherwise ordinary people. I don't believe, however, that polygamists with their highly religious backgrounds (one seen as heretical by the majority of the American population) and their deliberate separation with mainstream society will ever achieve the kind of social integration necessary for them to get that kind of sympathy. But again, they're welcome to try. But what legal points could they make to justify their proposal?


I am, in essence, against homosexual marriage (and I know a few). However, I don't care enough or think it threatens enough to make a deal of it anymore. Polygamists will use the same legal standpoints, especially religious freedom and anti-discrimination, as legal points. I'm not trying to urge that if homosexual marriage is passed then polygamy getting legalized will be some automatic step which is a slamdunk. I'm just saying that that use of the 'slippery slope' argument is both valid and more rational relating to polgyamy than those trying to dissuade us from allowing homosexuality based on an irrational fear of bestiality being the next to come.





Well—there's a difference between ludicrous arguments which compare things like bestiality and homosexual marriage (a stupid statement like this only serves to highlight how ignorant and bigoted the speaker is) and something like polygamy and homosexual marriage. Polygamy, at face value (a marriage which includes a person of one sex and multiple people of another—although we can simply define it as a man and multiple women) actually represents no offense. Nobody is harmed. In theory, it should actually allow a family to better support their children. What's all screwed up about it is the other elements which tend to go hand in hand with it wherever it is practiced (e.g. underage and forced marriage, incest, sexual discrimination). People don't like it for various reasons (usually social or religious) but at least they have some ground to stand on in presenting an argument.

But even here there's a strong disconnect. The freedom requested in honoring polygamy, independently a luxury wanted people, does not compare to an entire category of persons who have been restricted of rights afforded everyone else.



Well I disagree, but it doesn't really matter. I wasn't trying to convince anyone that the two were the same thing, and that one would immediately usher in the next. I was merely trying to suggest that the use of the 'slippery slope' argument is validly used when referring to polygamy. Just the same as many here will champion gay marriage as a right and espouse certain reasons, so too do some for polygamy. I've examined the rationale behind outlawing both, and when one is dissolved the wall for the other won't be as strong. I'm not trying to convince anyone, or to warn you that one is an inevitability, just that that will likely be the next legal challenge.

Unless an additional reason is manufactured when legalizing gay marriage, I fail to see how the legalization won't in many ways strengthen the path for the other.

Personally, I'm against both. But if given a choice, I'd rather have gay marriage. Personally, I think our legislatures can constitutionally exclude both.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby TooMuchBaijiu » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:35 pm

Patricoo wrote:Regardless, the point should be that this group is a super minority which has, generally speaking, its own culture. Gay rights groups sometimes feel the need to be loud, obnoxious, and in-your-face in a deliberate attempt to get noticed and heard. Its not that they are those things, is that the groups often think this is the best method to gain attention. Its more damaging, really. Its very rare that anyone gains acceptance in any circle for any reason by touting the phrase 'Deal with it.'


I agree here. Adopting a confrontational, bullying stance on this issue is no way to go about it. Adopting a conciliatory "All we want is what you have" stance is much more likely to get you what you want. It's the reason why MLK has a holiday and Malcolm X doesn't. Of course, there's plenty of people on the other side who are quite confrontational themselves, as well as plenty of pro-gay marriage advocates who are anything but.

Shikanosuke wrote: I am, in essence, against homosexual marriage (and I know a few). However, I don't care enough or think it threatens enough to make a deal of it anymore. Polygamists will use the same legal standpoints, especially religious freedom and anti-discrimination, as legal points. I'm not trying to urge that if homosexual marriage is passed then polygamy getting legalized will be some automatic step which is a slamdunk. I'm just saying that that use of the 'slippery slope' argument is both valid and more rational relating to polgyamy than those trying to dissuade us from allowing homosexuality based on an irrational fear of bestiality being the next to come.


[cheap shot]Hey, I'm against gay marriage myself. I don't think there'll ever come a time when I will ever consider marrying another man.[/cheap shot]

I understand your point about how the legalization of homosexual marriage will be used as a standpoint to justify the legalization of polygamy. But I think it can also be said that the structure of a polygamous marriage is fundamentally different from a monogamous one. For example, while two men getting married are entering into a contract which is otherwise identical to a heterosexual marriage, a polygamous marriage involves three or more, which creates a whole different kind of arrangement. For example, how would divorce work? Would grounds for one member of the arrangement automatically be grounds for another? Does it invalidate the entire contract? What about custody? Would women be allowed to have two husbands? (All else would be sexist) If so, how would you manage a family tree that looks like a Mandelbrot Fractal?

If I were to be a lawyer or judge arguing against polygamy, these would be a mere portion of the arguments I'd be bringing up. I would not, however, actually discuss it's ethicality, which though I find personally distasteful, do not think is actually harmful to those involved, provided that they were adults who got themselves into it without any form of coercion.
I don't write fanfic, but if I did it would involve Zhou Yu and Zheng He fighting to win the heart of Lai Choi San. Then I'd make them join forces to fight Ming the Merciless, who secretly works for Master Li. I'd squeeze Lu Bu in there somehow.
User avatar
TooMuchBaijiu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:15 am
Location: In 1939, chasing Frida Kahlo with a Gillette

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Lassic » Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:48 am

I fail to see how polygamy would be the next step after gay marriage is accepted. The way I see it, polygamy is potentially dangerous where gay marriage is not.

Why?

Marriage is an established concept in most - if not all - western cultures. It is basically the union of two people forming one single "new" family. A christian interpretation of this concept dictates that it's the union of two people of different genders. But allowing two people of the same gender to be united does not, technically, make this concept invalid, where polygamy actually does. Polygamy would allow the same person to be a part of two - possibly more - different families. It would change the very definition of family. If they allow gay marriage, it won't have any kind of impact in an heterosexual person's life. if they change the concept of marriage to allow polygamy, it will affect everyone's lives, whether you are a polygamist or not.

At least where I live, being gay is not illegal. Being in a homo-affective relationship sharing a place to live is not illegal. But polygamy is. There's a reason for that.

Now, I'm not pro or against gay marriage. Truth be told, I couldn't care less. I just wish they'd stop with the gay parades every year so close from where I live... They are so loud :|
"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"
User avatar
Lassic
Apprentice
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:47 pm

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:42 pm

TooMuchBaijiu wrote:I understand your point about how the legalization of homosexual marriage will be used as a standpoint to justify the legalization of polygamy. But I think it can also be said that the structure of a polygamous marriage is fundamentally different from a monogamous one. For example, while two men getting married are entering into a contract which is otherwise identical to a heterosexual marriage, a polygamous marriage involves three or more, which creates a whole different kind of arrangement. For example, how would divorce work? Would grounds for one member of the arrangement automatically be grounds for another? Does it invalidate the entire contract? What about custody? Would women be allowed to have two husbands? (All else would be sexist) If so, how would you manage a family tree that looks like a Mandelbrot Fractal?

If I were to be a lawyer or judge arguing against polygamy, these would be a mere portion of the arguments I'd be bringing up. I would not, however, actually discuss it's ethicality, which though I find personally distasteful, do not think is actually harmful to those involved, provided that they were adults who got themselves into it without any form of coercion.


Contracts are often between more than one party. Should mere difficulty in arbitrating disputes of contracts prevent people from enjoying a right other people get to have? Why should such insignificant difficulties trample a right of an individual's expression of religion?




Lassic wrote:I fail to see how polygamy would be the next step after gay marriage is accepted. The way I see it, polygamy is potentially dangerous where gay marriage is not.

Why?

Marriage is an established concept in most - if not all - western cultures. It is basically the union of two people forming one single "new" family. A christian interpretation of this concept dictates that it's the union of two people of different genders. But allowing two people of the same gender to be united does not, technically, make this concept invalid, where polygamy actually does. Polygamy would allow the same person to be a part of two - possibly more - different families. It would change the very definition of family. If they allow gay marriage, it won't have any kind of impact in an heterosexual person's life. if they change the concept of marriage to allow polygamy, it will affect everyone's lives, whether you are a polygamist or not.


Polygamists create one new familial unit (not two or three), and as James illustrated earlier (and as evidenced by humanity's history), it is often argued the polygamist familial unit often better suited to support itself than the modern monogamous household. Marriage is, and has been, capable of comprehending polygamy. However, that doesn't mean we as a culture are (or have to be) welcoming of it. And our laws reflect this.

EDIT: More importantly, I should note I'm really just letting yall know (not that you need me to) it will be the next legal challenge, not that it shall succeed. More to the point, its a more valid application of the 'slippery slope' argument than when anti-gay marriage protesters apply it to bestiality. This should be be easily understood as there is already a debate (both ethically and legally) to had over permitting polygamist marriages (as evidenced by this conversation). There is no such conversation, or very very little of one, to be had about bestiality. So, changing the marriage landscape in any way will not benefit bestiality, but it will for polygamy. However, I am not saying homosexual marriage and polygamy are inherently linked.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Lassic » Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:55 pm

I would agree that a polygamist contract would form one single unit family when only one person is allowed to engage in polygamy. Let's say, for instance, that a man has 4 wives and 3 children, and all his four wives have this man as a single husband. I would agree that this is one health, functional, polygamist unit.

Now, his 4th wife (who is the mother of one of his children) decides to marry another man, that has already 2 wives and 6 children. Will all this people all of a sudden be part of a single unit? Seems very clear to me that the answer is "no", that the contract of the man with his 4th wife, has nothing to do with the contract of this 4th wife with a third person.

Much like being in a partnership. You are allowed to own different companies with different partners, but all these companies are not considered one single unit just because you are a partner in all of them.
"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"
User avatar
Lassic
Apprentice
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved