I agree with Vermillion. This thread was dormant for nearly six months before being resurrected. It and the one on "Gays in the Military" have become an obsession. It's become the emotional sideshow on that it was in the 2004 presidential election. Isn't there anything else worth talking about?

Here's an analogy that doesn't take a Mensa candidate to figure out.

Gay Marriage & Gays in the Military : :: Anna Nicole Smith : MSNBC

Sorry, but I can't wait any longer to get this off my chest.

isn't sodomy still illegal in some states? I know there anti-sodomy laws here in florida.

after quick review ... lawrence V texas apparently overturned all anti-sodomy laws ... i stand corrected.

Well, in Illinois, homosexual couples are allowed to adopt... just as first cousins are. The State of Illinois also legally recognizes that procreation is highly unlikely after the age of 50.

And now you are no longer talking about procreation but raising the child and, as such, you are no longer dealing with question two of the debate... which deals specifically with the ability to procreate. So, this answer of yours doesn't end the debate in regards to question 2. You are no longer talking about question 2.



Again, just because a group has never enjoyed the fundamental right does not mean that they should be denied access to that right when all relevant obstacles have been removed. In States that allow homosexual couples to adopt, where their intimate activities are no longer criminalized, there is no reason to deny them access to the fundamental right of marriage. There were absolutely no States prior to the 1970's that legally defined the fundamental right to marry as being gender specific. Homosexual couples were denied access to marriage because they couldn't abide by all the obligations of the contract. Those obligations are now all gone.

And one simply can't argue under-inclusion in a case dealing with a fundamental right. Same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, incestuous marriage... despite what adjective you put in front of it, it is still marriage... a fundamental right. As such, yes... in order for an exclusion (and now it's not simply under-inclusion, it is outright exclusion... bans) to be constitutional, it must be related to a valid State interest and the exclusion must be necessary in order to further that interest.

In the state of Illinois, for example, to exclude because of the inability to procreate can't be considered necessary because the State specifically and knowingly allows non-procreative couples to marry... so it can't be necessary to exclude a group in order to further that interest.

Likewise, Illinois allows homosexual couples to adopt. Illinois makes that determination in the best interest of the child. It is, then, unreasonable (and most certainly unnecessary) to exclude same-sex couples from marriage on the grounds that the state has an interest in providing for the best interest of children. Illinois has already determined that the best interest of the child may be to live with a same-sex couple. That same state then denies that couple the access to the institution designed to provide the ideal stable familial environment in which to raise that child. Why? Because their same-sex relationship is not in the best interest of the child? Why then did the state allow them to adopt?

The State can't argue that it is in the best interest of a child to live with a same-sex couple and then argue at the same time that the couple can't participate in the institution that has proven itself to provide the ideal environment in which to raise children - because to do so is not in the best interest of children. That is completely irrational.

Looks like it is already atarting ...


German Incest Law Challenged

What does this have to do with this debate? The couple's attorney is arguing that other European countries have lifted the ban on incestuous sex, which is why, he argues, that the law in Germany should be overturned. This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

and you don't think that germany having just opened up gay civil unions has anything to do with them looking to fight this now in court?

then why didn't they fight this 3 years ago ... before he went to jail? several other countries open this up before then.

listen to the wording they are using "Incest is not socially harmful." "our love is just as valid." If not a direct corrallary Gay civil unions have emboldened this couple and their 3 of 4 mentally retarded children.

and if that is not enough Here in the good ol' US of A polygamy groups are using lawrence V Texas to start what they call the "Next Civil Right."

Polygamy Website


Next up Age of Consent Laws...

Just? Registered partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Germany since 2001 - almost 6 years ago. So why didn't they fight this 3 years ago? Why didn't they fight this 5 years ago when their first child was taken from them? Same-sex unions were in the news then, having recently been legalized. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the legalization of same-sex relationships.

They argue that they are being denied the right to sexual freedom. This would be more akin to arguing that homosexuality is legal so incest should be legal. But homosexuality has been legal in Germany for decades. The attorney has not once made any connection between legalizing incest and legally recognizing same-sex unions. You are making it up.

The recent legal acceptance of same-sex unions could not have suddenly emboldened this couple regarding incest. And what, exactly, emboldened the other countries in Europe to legalize incest? You going to blame that on same-sex unions as well? Incest has been legal in France since 1810. And France started allowing same-sex civil unions in 1999. Let's see... that's 189 years later. There must, then, be some connection... France must have abolished incest because it knew that 189 years later it was going to have to legally recognize same-sex unions. Oh, those crafty French same-sex couples... paving the way to legalized incest in France.

And, just so you know... 2 of the four have unspecified disabilities... not 3. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you start inventing corollaries.

And it should be noted that Lawrence v. Texas deals with an unconstitutional ban on sexual activity and not directly with the same-sex marriage. I don't know exactly how polygamists will go about applyling it to polygamy. Problems with polygamy are not all related to sexual activity.

I'm impressed that you can predict, with reasonable accuracy, what issue is next to go. I agree with you, if we allow gays to marry, one day, man will assert his right to elope with Gofers, if not Giraffes.

Next, our top notch universities will be forced to admit centaurs into their ranks, not based on their academic credentials but due to a lack of bio-diversity on campus.

One of the problems i think in this debate (the general, nationwide debate, not this post per se) is a difference in which homosexaulity is viewed:

While being homosexual is almost always seen as a tragic discovery of oneself, it is clearly seen as some kind of deviance -- an abomination, an immoral, unnatural or un-reasonable lifestyle -- among one side of the debate. This comparison perfectly illustrates that thinking:

If we give gays the right to marry, inscestuals, polygamists and transexuals will all assert similar rights. As a society, we will be ruined from the inside out.

So I think this debate is not about one's 'right' to be married. Marriage is a right, flat-out, no contest. Give the government the right to decide which marriage is socially benefitial, that's a tricky slope.

But on a grassroots level, we do have to decide whether Gay marriage, as a whole, would be the national ruination thats it hyped up to be. And until more countries like South Africa give us some kind of precendent to base our arguments on, there is very little to go on... other than pre-concieved notion of homosexuality and ancient, seemingly tyrannical laws written down in the book of Levicticus.

In a way, I congratulate the quoted incestuals for basing their argument on whether or not their love is "socially harmful/" As someone who opposed inscest, like virtually everyone else, I still have to recognize that theirs is an argument to contend with: how can I illegalize a marriage that doesn't effect me with virtually no consequences, save perhaps, the problematic genetics that arise from inscest?

Ultimately, this is not a debate of rights, its a debate of what damage gay marriage could or could not do to our society. That's is a trickier, more Freudian debate than a series of schpeils on constitutional law.

from the website i linked to about polygamy & Lawrence V Texas

June 26, 2003. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the Lawrence v. Texas case, has established that individuals have...


"...the full right to
engage in private conduct
without government intervention."

Obviously, this brings enormous ramifications for the civil rights of adult, freely-consenting, non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamists.

So, this is Big News! Polygamy truly is the next civil rights battle!

and i do appologize my wife told me it was 3 of the 4 but after checking you are right it is "Only" 2 of them

Well, if you take that quote out of context it could be used to justify any private behavior and exclude it from government intervention. Lawrence actually stated that, "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." There's a big difference between that statement and the claim made by that polygamy website. Besides, engaging in civil marriage is not private conduct - so Lawrence, however they may dream of interpreting it, doesn't apply.

Doesn't it?

if we reorganize the construct of marriage to allow 2 men to marry why not multiple men ad women?

Arent you being prejudicial in your enforcement of what happens between consenting adults?



the above spaced for clarity by me ....

where is there a big difference? if that statute ( which was I believe a sodomy statute) has no compelling state interest why should one barring plural marriage if it is intruding into the CONSENTUAL personal and private life of an individual.

for you to say so is PURELY hate speech ...

the "Compelling state interest" in marriage is children... i do believe a few court cases have stated such ... that being said plural marriages by default produce far more children than monogamous marriages due to economies of scale. I doubt you will be able to come up with a compelling arguement against consentual polygamy without using prejudice or unreasonable absolutes.



no it merely removed the illegality of sodomy, much as polygamy. which is the first roadblock to normalization.

This goes to the heart of the debate. What exactly needs to be reorganized in the construct of marriage in order to allow 2 men to marry? Absolutely nothing! All you need is a return to the legal definition of marriage pre-1973 in this country and bang-zoom, you're there. That change from the gender-neutral definition to a gender specific definition came about specifically to prevent same-sex marriage. To change it back requires no reorganization of the construct of marriage itself at all.

Are you somehow implying that the same could be said of polygamy?



No.



Once again, engaging in civil marriage is not a private act... you must inform the government if you are getting legally married - it is a legal contract to which the government is a party. You don't need to inform the government every time you are engaging in sexual intercourse. The County Clerk does not need to sign a document every time you engage in sexual intercourse. You don't need to apply to the State for a license every time you engage in sexual intercourse. The knowledge that you engage in sexual intercourse is not kept on file in a government office.

There's the big difference.



Ridiculous.



And marriage, under its current construct, deals - in part - with the equal distribution of assets should the marriage dissolve (many of the obligations of the marriage contract only come into play once the marriage ends). It could be argued that this was created in order to protect the well being of the children in a divorce - so that the man couldn't divorce a woman and kick her and the child out on their rears while keeping all the assets. In a marriage (under the current construct) a spouse agrees to share the assets equally with the individual he/she chooses to marry. Should the marriage end, the spouse is entitled to an equal share of those assets. If, for example, a woman marries a man and has a child with the man... they divorce and (let's say) she gets custody of the child. Now, she is entitled to half of the marital assets per her marital contract. But if the man is married to 3 other women, is it fair to them and their children that this one gets half of the man's marital assets?

Marriage is currently constructed with the concept of 2 in mind. Currently, you engage in a contract with one other person and the obligations of the contract are set up around that idea. Under the current construct of marriage, a polygamist must marry one person per contract. If he/she marries another person, that's another contract. This creates an imbalance because while, for example, the man is married to 7 (say) women... each woman is only married to 1 man and not to each other... Each woman has a marital agreement with 1 man... while the man has several agreements with several women. This is why polygamy does not work under the current construct of marriage. Now, polygamists are certainly free to lobby for a change to the construct of marriage to allow polygamy. But, it is not the court's job to legislate a change in the construct of marriage.

Same-sex marriage, however, requires no such change in construct. The recent changes in the legal definition of marriage were created specifically to exclude same-sex couples. As such, it is within the reach of the courts to examine the constitutionality of those changes. And, being that marriage is a fundamental right, such a change must be necessary in order to further a valid State interest. Those changes, however, do not.

you misunderstand plural marriage altogether ... they do in fact marry all parties involved, so it is no different ...


maybe you should ask victor... First Plural Civil Union In Brussels.

If someone is Bisexual are you going to make them choose and who has the right to do that ?

Perhaps you should read the article you linked to. The trio aren't married.



I've read what Victor had to say on the subject and this is it:



Now, what was your point again?

All you've done is illustrate my point - a point I have made all along dating back to well before this polygamous civil union occurred - civil unions are a bad idea. I find it interesting to see how almost prophetic these words are now:

From my post in the History of Marriage as an Institution thread way back on February 15, 2005:

1) you are correct they are NOT married, I did not say they were, in the 1980s gays were given civil unions in the netherlands which turned into the laws they have now in the 90's. It looks like you are making MY arguement above with civil unions , but we disagree on the fact that the difference between marriages for gays and civil unions are one of symantics civil union = marriage without church involvment.

2) i think you missed my larger question if marriage is about sexual gratification and a commitment, what is the state interest? barring state benifits ( taxes, which we could argue about due to "head of household", social security etc... ) most other "benefits" of marriage can be found through other legal avenues (living trusts, power of attorney, etc...) without a compelling state interest (which as i have said before in the case of heterosexual marriage, is children and all children must come from a biologically heterosexual union.) why should the state be forced to expend the amount of time and treasure needed to subsidize a gay union which will have no benefit or interest to the state?

3) If someone is bisexual do you , or the state have the right to force them to choose "one or the other", and if the state has this right, because as has been said marriage is a civil right... why does it not have the right to deny gay couples.

BTW... nice cherry picking of the article...

In plural marriage ( and i did not reference the article about this idea. ) you do indeed marry all parties involved, not just the member of the opposite sex, this does not mean that you are bound by the marriage contract to engage in sexual activity with everyone in the marriage merely to love honor and cherich, or however your marriage vows go ...

Ummm... no. It isn't a matter of semantics. Civil marriage = marriage without church involvement. Civil union = an alternative to civil marriage. You can get legally married without having the church involved. You can have a religious marriage and not be legally married (if you don't apply for the license, but just have the religious ceremony.)



I don't know... I never made the claim that marriage is only about sexual gratification and a commitment.



Really? All children com from a heterosexual union? And sperm banks are used for what purpose? To bypass the heterosexual union? Are children adopted in this country? Yes, they come from the biological components of a man and a woman coming together... but it isn't even necessary for the man and the woman to be in the same state for this to occur.

Besides, the way constitutional law works in this country, the exclusion of a group from a fundamental right must be necessary in order to further a valid State interest. How is excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry necessary?

Same-sex couples raise children - which is again, the compelling interest the state has in regulating marriage. Currently many states allow same-sex couples to adopt, but deny them access to the one institution the State feels provides the ideal environment in which to raise children. The State basically claims that it is in the best interest of a particular child to be raised by a same-sex couple, but then denies that child the ideal environment in which to be raised because the State claims it has a compelling interest in providing for the best interest of children.



There is a difference between simply giving a particular group access to the right of marriage and completely restructuring the right of marriage in order to accomodate a group.



I didn't cherry pick the article. You said I should ask Victor about plural marriages and that is the only thing Victor stated that is relevant to a discussion of the legal recognition of marriage.



Yes, but in a civil marriage you may only engage in the contract with one other person and the benefits and obligations of civil marriage contract are built around the concept of the couple. Why? Because it provides the best protection for women and children. Assumed paternity, for example, is one of the obligations/benefits (depending on who you ask) of civil marriage. According to this part of the civil marriage contract, a child born to a woman in marriage is assumed (for legal purposes) to be the child of the husband. This prevents a husband from disowning his own children by claiming they aren't his. How would assumed paternity work in a polyamorous plural marriage in which there are 5 men and 5 women? Should one man decide to leave the plural marriage, is he legally and financially responsible for all the children in the plural marriage? And to what extent is he responsible? If a woman leaves that marriage and takes custody of one of the children, are all of the other members of the plural marriage financially responsible for providing child support? Who does the woman sue for child support? All of them? Plural marriage does not fit the marriage contract as it exists today. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, does. Nothing has to change in the marriage contract itself to accomodate same-sex couples.

Really? All children com from a heterosexual union? And sperm banks are used for what purpose? To bypass the heterosexual union? Are children adopted in this country? Yes, they come from the biological components of a man and a woman coming together... but it isn't even necessary for the man and the woman to be in the same state for this to occur.


YES! all children come from a biologically heterosexual union ( see sexual reproduction in your biology 101 class) homosexual unions are 100% incapable of reproduction.

Same-sex couples raise children - which is again, the compelling interest the state has in regulating marriage. Currently many states allow same-sex couples to adopt, but deny them access to the one institution the State feels provides the ideal environment in which to raise children. The State basically claims that it is in the best interest of a particular child to be raised by a same-sex couple, but then denies that child the ideal environment in which to be raised because the State claims it has a compelling interest in providing for the best interest of children.

Were these children concieved inside that homosexual union? if so please have them call ripleys, they have a large sum of money for them.
Plural marriages raise many more children than monogamous or homosexual couples to use this arguement only strengthens Plural marriage proponents claims.

I guess that depends on how you define "union."

But the State has no interest in excluding couples because they are incapable of reproduction. Homosexual unions are, however, capable of raising children.

So are polygamous groups, and they are much more prolific in their raising of children.

once again you fred estaire the question of bisexuals can the state force them to choose in order to grant them a marriage ? and under what grounds?



genetic material from a man and a woman is required to create another human being.

A man and a woman are required to create a child ... one would assume that unless you are trying to cloud the issue you would acknowledge and accept that as fact.


therfore beastiality is the only thing the state should have a right to exclude... oh wait ... just because someone wants to do sheep doesnt mean they cant be a good parent...

[quote name='GuardianAngel' date='Mar 7 2007, 09:40 AM' post='209497']
So are polygamous groups, and they are much more prolific in their raising of children.

once again you fred estaire the question of bisexuals can the state force them to choose in order to grant them a marriage ? and under what grounds?[/qutoe]

I haven't Fred Estaire'd the question. You just aren't reading the answer. I have already explained the grounds.

[quote]genetic material from a man and a woman is required to create another human being.

A man and a woman are required to create a child ... one would assume that unless you are trying to cloud the issue you would acknowledge and accept that as fact.[/quote]

A man's genetic material and a woman's genetic material are required to create a child... I have never denied that fact. The man and the woman do not necessarily even have to see each other or touch one another in order for this to happen.

[quote]Therfore beastiality is the only thing the state should have a right to exclude... oh wait ... just because someone wants to do sheep doesnt mean they cant be a good parent...
[/quote]

Are you somehow implying that homosexuals "do sheep"?

please stop projecting...

Do you actually read what i write? if someones parenting ability is the only thing we base their ability to marry on you cannot exclude beastiality.

tap..tap...tappity tap.

Bisexuals can the state tell them to choose ? and why?

You brought up sheep, I didn't.



The courts, in deciding adoptions, determine what is in the best interest of the child. Those who adopt have their parenting abilities scrutinized before being allowed to adopt. A court determines whether or not a particular couple will make good parents for a child. Is marriage regulated because of a compelling interest in raising a child or is it a compelling interest in procreation that is at play in banning same-sex marriage? Is it necessary to prevent same-sex couples from marrying because they can't procreate?




To choose what? To choose to either marry a man or marry a woman, but you can't marry both? Yes.

The construct of marriage... the makeup... the obligations and benefits are constructed around the concept of an engagement in the contract between a couple. Is there a reason for this? Yes. I've already explained it to you. No right is completely inviolable. The State can exclude groups from a fundamental right... but the ability to do so is limited.

I think i was pretty clear about my intention with using that ... and you decide to twist what i said, homosexuals by definition are not beastial... that is why it is called homosexuality , and or beastiality.



one would think the optimal situation would be for the couple who created the child to raise them... It is called a family.

all children of someone in a homosexual relationship were created outside of it BY DEFINITION.



WHY? if a bisexual loves a man and a woman why is it ok for the state to tell them that they cannot marry the person they love? are bisexuals not capable of the same love, commitment and parenting as a heterosexual or homosexual couple?

No, the concept and constructs are set around a heterosexual pair, that will become a family, by both biological and social definition, a mother , father and children. polygamy was around before monogamy, at least as far as sociologists and anthropologists can tell... our current concept is from the roman monogamous ideal. If no right is inviolable why can the state not deny recognition to gay couples? The state has no interest as long as it does not cost the state time or treasure. So therefore i dont believe it can or should stop homosexual cohabitation but as such unions are incapable of producing children which is in the states interest then i do not believe that they should support it.


oh and as for courts judging parents unfit

Courts in 11 states have ruled that gay men and lesbians, on the basis of
their sexual orientation, are unfit to receive custody of their children.
from PFLAG

[semi-off topic editorial rant]
don't you understand entspeak, if we change the laws we will make each and every step easier, by setting precident, like the laws stopping miscogenation, they did not directly produce the current gay rights agenda, but their defeat became a beacon for the gay rights agenda, by tying gay rights in as a civil right, they opened it further, look at the debate that has been going on for the last 420+ posts, in several places gay rights were directly tied to civil rights, I do believe all men are equal , I am glad that miscogenation laws have been repealed, that being said why should the government subsidize a relationship that has NO redeeming value to the state?

I do not believe homosexuality should be criminal, but i also dont see why the state should have to support and subsidize a relationship with no benefit to the state.

and as of today according to the PFLAG webiste pflag statisics as of today homosexuals are not recognized in any federal civil rights legislation. i don't know if that is true but as they are a gay rights group i am taking their word for it. so one does not have to be specifically named to take it up as a banner to get what you want.

[/S-OTER]

Hmmm... then maybe it should be illegal for people to put up their children for adoption?



And so are all the children of couples who are infertile... BY DEFINITION.



You are completely ignoring my answer... so stop asking why.



You just aren't paying attention. In order to exclude a group from a fundamental right, the State must prove that: the exclusion is related to a valid State interest and that the exclusion is necessary in order to further that interest.



The State of Illinois goes out of its way to support couples that are incapable of producing children. In fact, it requires that one particular type of couple actually prove it is incapable of producing children before they are allowed to legally marry. Where is the State's valid interest related to excluding a particular group because they are unable to produce children? The State has no valid interest in reserving marriage for those couples that can procreate. There is not a State in this country that denies a heterosexual couple the right to marry based on the fact that it is unable to procreate - in some states it requires the couple to be unable to procreate before allowing marriage. You can't even get a marriage anulled if it turns out that your partner is unable to procreate (unless your partner lied to you about it beforehand - which is fraud). Even if you follow the new fangled covenant marriages which do away with "no-fault" divorce and only allow divorce for particular reasons, the inability to procreate - in and of itself - is not cause for divorce.



Only 1 State in this country outright bans adoption by homosexuals... that is Florida. 7 States and the District of Columbia explicitly allow adoption by same-sex couples. In some of those states it is actually illegal to consider sexual orientation when determining whether or not a child can be adopted by a couple.



No benefit to the State? Really? So, these same-sex couples who adopt children - taking them out of the State welfare system (where they were placed by heterosexuals, by the by) and taking on the burden of raising these children abandoned by their heterosexual parents - these couples provide no benefit to the state?

So, you believe that heterosexuals should be able to just pop out children and place the burden of raising them on other people and all the while enjoy the benefits of marriage just because they are capable of being baby factories? They don't actually have to raise them? And those that do choose to raise them... choose to take on that burden from the State... these couples provide no benefit to the State?

Is that what you are saying?



So at least we can do away with the polygamy question. You concede that the concept and constructs are set around a pair. That is the way civil marriage is constructed in this country. Allowing same-sex marriage does nothing to disrupt this construct. Heterosexual couples will still have access to the same construct that they always had... absolutely nothing changes. Fathers, mothers and children have the same obligations, benefits and protections that they always did have. Allowing polygamy does disrupt that construct.

Now, show me what in the construct of the civil marriage contract (not the religious, not the social, but the legal arrangement - which is what this debate is about) precludes same-sex marriage?

GuardianAngel I will concede the point that it is optimal for the natural parents to rear a child.

Yet we don't live in an optimal world. We have parents who don't want children, broken homes, dysfunctional families - where one or both parents are habitually stoned or violent. Some are just indifferent. As a public school teacher for 34 years, I got a pretty good look at these things.

Sometimes a non-optimal solution, an approximation if you will, is better than the alternative.

BTW: GA, you entered this thread after it had been domant for six months. Have you read all 400+ posts to make sure we are not rehasing some of this just for you?

Then the question is not gay marriage but gay adoption...





I entered this after 3 days of watching others, this thread restarted on feb 20th i did not enter until a few days later and while i did not read all of the arguements the last 5 or 6 pages were read, yes some of the questions were asked but i dont think truely logical answers were given, just as entspeak was saying that the state has the right to limit a bisexual to marry either a man OR a woman, not both ( which at the moment it does not) I would propose the state allows men and women all equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. IOW if that idea does not hold up for gay marriage why should the same hold for polygamous or polyamorous relationships.

If that someone loves someone(thing) else is what is important, is it the right of anyone to restrict that relationship? If yes they can, why cannot that self same logic be applied in reverse to prevent gay marriage? If it isnt't love then what is it that qualifies someone for marriage? If it is an inalienable right ? if so we can deny it to no one... Is it someones parenting ability? who gets to judge? The problem with changing marriage to allow homosexual couples to marry is that you by default set precident that means marriage is not a monogamous heterosexual commitment to build a family, which is I believe the normal western understanding of marriage. Pre-1973 the idea of homosexual marriage was ludicrous, until that time homosexuality was listed by the APA as a mental disorder, which by it's nature prevented marriage because the individuals in question were unfit to enter into a marriage contract, because of this, the removal of homosexuality from the APA in 1973 was the reason for much of the regeslation banning homosexual marriage, not some sudden awakening of the "Threat of homosexuality". returning to a "pre-1973" idea of marriage would have homosexuals treated as mental patients... but i digress...

so please, what is it that qualifies someone for a state sanctioned marriage?


how does this allow group A but not group B or should marriage be allowed for all ?

I have tried to show the slippery slope arguement does indeed hold up to scrutiny in places where homosexual marriages or unions are allowed in belgium couples use the cohaitation law to get around laws polygamy much as they did with homosexuality in the 70's and 80's.

In germany a couple is looking to overturn incest law because they claim they relationship is not socially harmful even though it brought 2 mentally retarded children into the world.

In the US plural marriage groups are using anti-sodomy laws to try and decriminalize polygamous /polyamorous relationships.

None of these is directly tied to homosexuality, just as homosexuality is not tied directly into the civil rights movement, but the retoric, tactics, and logic are being used in each case to further the political and polcy goals of each group.

And BoF shouldnt the government emphasize what is optimal and minimize that which is less than? shouldnt the thousands of heterosexual couples who want to adopt but are put on huge waiting lists or who go to other countries get first choice at adoption, government subsidies, and acceptance in society?




I am paying attention all right... if the states interest in marriage is children how can it deny plural marriage which produces many many more children than monogamous or homosexual relationships, but allow homosexual ones which by their nature can produce absolutely NO children.

If it is sexual orientation, then bisexuals should be allowed to marry at least one of each or we force them to deny "who they are"

ploease give me an actually logical answer and not just "Because they can or I say so ... at this moment Homosexual marriage is not recognized in the majority of the US and many states have prohibitions against it, and as well the DOMA forgives states that do not recognize marriage of homosexuals in their state a way around the "Full Faith" provision.

so please tell me how we can allow homosexual relationships without allowing plural ones. as of yet you have not even come close.

GuardianAngel,



I can't speak for BoF, but while I agree that it is optimal for a child's biological parents to raise it... I never stated that same-sex couples provided a less optimal environment than heterosexual couples in terms of raising an adopted child. That isn't the assertion you made either... you said:



AND

The State has the right to prevent polygamy because it has an interest in protecting the rights of women and children. The current construct of marriage - in terms of the obligations and benefits - is one way the States express that interest - equal distribution of assets, assumed paternity, etc...

The courts can only validate or invalidate law, they can't legislate. As such, they can deem bans on same-sex marriage invalid as unconstitutional, they can rule that legislative changes to legal definitions of marriage that explicitly ban same-sex marriage are invalid as unconstitutional, but they can't require the State to reconstruct marriage in order to accomodate polygamy - which is what would have to happen. Besides, the State could prove that it is necessary to ban polygamy in order to maintain its interest in protecting the rights of women and children that exist in the current construct of marriage. This is why polygamy will remain illegal even if same-sex marriage is legalized.

Polygamists have their own battle to fight. Nothing in allowing same-sex marriage changes the issues related to allowing polygamy. Using same-sex civil unions as an alternative, however, does create the slippery slope that you mention... I have always argued that. But if you allow same-sex couples access to the right to marry, you don't have that slippery slope. If you allow alternatives to marriage, you open the door to more alternatives to the construct of marriage (which includes polyamory). The events in Scandinavia prove that point. Alternatives to marriage create that problem... not allowing same-sex couples access to marriage itself.

And polygamy and polyamory are not necessarily the same thing. Polygamy involve marriage and polyamory doesn't necessarily involve marriage. All polygamous relationships are, by definition, polyamorous... polyamorous relationships are not necessarily polygamous.

As far as I know, there are no laws explicitly banning polyamory unless marriage is involved. However, when you are discussing legal recognition of polyamorous relationships, you are either talking about polygamy or polyamorous civil unions.

Now, I am not talking about returning to a pre-1973 social view of marriage, but a return to the pre-1973 legal definition of marriage. You are right in that the changes occurred because the things that prevented same-sex couples from marrying were disappearing. Once sodomy laws were repealed or ruled unconstitutional in a State (and, arguably, once being homosexual was no longer officially considered a mental disorder), there was nothing in the law to prevent same-sex marriage. So, the States took it upon themselves to legally redefine marriage in order to explicitly ban same-sex marriage. The problem with this is that marriage is a fundamental right and if the State suddenly makes that explicit exclusion, in order to be considered constitutional, the exclusion must be related to a valid State interest and the exclusion must be necessary in order to further that valid State interest. That is the way constitutional law works when dealing with a fundamental right. This is why the bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional - the State can't prove that it is necessary to ban them. The burden is not on same-sex couples to prove that they are worthy of recognition, it is on the State to prove that it is necessary not to recognize them.

And Lawrence explicitly states that it isn't dealing with the issue of marriage. As such, it is futile to use Lawrence as a means of legalizing polygamy. And again, in terms of private acts... polyamory is not illegal as long as it doesn't involve civil marriage (which is a public act).

There is nothing in the case of the German couple to indicate that their challenge to incest laws are related to same-sex marriage and it is more likely that it is related to the fact that other countries in the European Union do not have bans on incest. I've not even seen a mention of marriage (or any desire of the incestuous couple to get married) in any article on the subject.

If you believe there is a flaw in the logic of my response, could you please point it out to me?

Wait a second....you need to pick a side. I thought marriage had nothing to do with children and clearly - in terms of male gays marrying - women aren't a factor.

But the State still has that interest in regulating marriage. Even if infertile couples marry, the State still has an interest in protecting children that are the result of marital procreation. Just because an interest does not affect a smaller subset, doesn't mean that the State doesn't have that interest. And I never stated that marriage had nothing to do with children.

Wow the assertions:

Firstly, bisexual doesn't mean 'both at once', it means 'either'. bisexuals are no more likely than anyone else to have multiple partners at the same time. I DARE you to find an example of a bisexual who wants to be married to BOTH a man and a woman at the same time. In fact what they want, like anyone else, is the freedom to choose their partner. Who are you to tell them one choice is 'legal' and the other is 'not'?

Secondly, how can homosexuals be allowed to marry, yet NOT poligamists? Gee... how about my making homosexual marriage legal, and not changing the law banning polygamy? Seems pretty simple. Its not like it is the same situation, or the same law covering it, seems to me like legalising one without the other would be dead easy.

But hey, don't take my word for it, lets make SURE it is possible. lets ask Andorra, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Italy and Mexico.

OK, who among those countries has legalised gay marriage or gay civil unions? Hmmm, all of them.
OK, who among those countries has legalised polygamy? Hmmm, none of them.

So I guess it IS possible to legalise gay marriage without legalising polygamy. In fact, I can find NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to support your contention that one would lead to the other. Why would you assert otherwise?

Well, GuardianAngel's Scandinavian trio is an example of that, actually. They wanted to be married and are bisexual.



I believe the question is how can it be unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage and constitutional to ban polygamy. If you allow one, must you not then allow the other? That is the question that was asked.

That's pretty much it. I love that ... I DARE YOU ..... oooohhhhh... dude, the world is so full of people who want the freedom to do just about anything the mind can dream up ( I work in law enforcement at the moment, and trust me it is true there is nothing new under the sun, but damn, don't some people try... )

I still think the boundary for polygamy would have to be arbitrarily set.

What factor do we use to determine who does and does not qualify to marry? If we set an artificial boundary OUTSIDE of the states interest (children), how do we enforce it, with any moral or legal weight? the current definition is fairly easily defensable from the states point of view, the state needs citizens to grow & thrive, only sexual reproduction between a man and a woman can bring this about, monogamous families are the most stable enviroment for this, so therefore... done.

Anything else pushes the boundary out, and just as in construction you dont move a load bearing wall without reason or support, lest you wish the roof to cave in. As entspeak has said state supported marriage is not an absolute right, if it is it must be granted to ALL... that is the thing about rights in a free society, if it is an absolute right then EVERYONE must have that right, and /or freedom. if it is outside the states interest then the state has no reason to regulate or control it, BUT they also have no obligation to support it.



How does polygamy ( in theory ) hurt women or children? please do not use "slavery" or "abuse" as a justification there are laws on the books against those things, and as such are not part of the debate. My question is more or less since the states interest is raising kids, and since polygamous relationships tend to be FAR more prolific with regards to children why shouldn't the state allow polygamy BEFORE it allows homosexuality?

and if, by design humans cannot have children of their own outside of heterosexual sexual reproduction, shouldn't the state be hands off in any non-reproductive marriage?

These questions are completely theoretical and always have been. I am trying to get people to look at the LOGIC they are using, the states ONLY interest in marriage is CHILDREN, outside of that it is a personal freedom issue and one outside of the pervue and control of the state.

To the best of my ability I cannot see a logical arguement FOR homosexual state sponsored marriage.

I think you misunderstand me. There is no such thing as an inviolable fundamental right in this country. This does not make it an either/or situation, however. It isn't a matter of the State must grant everyone the right to marry or they can decide willy nilly for themselves who can marry. It's more complicated than that. As I stated, according to constitutional law, in order to violate a fundamental right, the State must prove that that violation is related to a valid State interest and the violation must be necessary in order to fulfill that interest. If it is outside the State interest and it is a fundamental right and it is not necessary to ban it... the State must support it... because it is a fundamental right.

I've given you the argument for why it is necessary to ban polygamy. You have not responded directly to that argument. Please do so before re-asking the same questions.



Marriage is not about proliferation. It is about providing an ideal environment in which to raise children - it is the raising of the children that is the important part. A couple can have a child... but if they don't raise the child, it dies. They could have another child... if they don't raise it... it dies. They could have yet another child... do you see? It isn't about how many children you can have, it is about the environment. It is about providing legal obligation for the spouses when it comes to the children and each other - for the best interest of the child.



The fact is, the State does not care if a couple is capable of procreating. As I've already stated, there are some states that even require couples to be incapable of procreating before they are allowed to be legally married.



I see no logical argument FOR state sponsored marriage of pedophiles. Two convicted pedophiles decide to marry... can they? Yep.

The fact is, you don't have to have a logical argument FOR homosexual state sponsored marriage. Because it is a fundamental right, the State must provide a logical argument AGAINST homosexual state sponsored marriage. They must prove that it is necessary to ban it.

So, back to square one - shouldn't that apply to all classes of consenting adults no matter what configuration exists? Why do gays get a special pass and others don't?

Certainly, it should apply to all classes of consenting adults no matter what configuration. I never argued that it didn't.

I thought that was what you meant and was just making sure. I agree completely and when I make this same point, half of AD blows a gasket. To me, it's common sense. If you specifically allow a class of people that physically could never reproduce to marry, you have to apply this same "right" to all. Given this, any group of consenting adults should be afforded the same opportunity.

Yes, unless there is some other reason why it would be necessary to exclude them. Incestuous marriage for example can remain illegal as long as incestuous relationships are illegal. Once that barrier is lifted, they certainly should have access to the right to marry.

and yet you dont see how this leads to the "slippery slope" ?

what necessity is it for the state to ban polygamous marriage?

is it that raising a child in that enviroment is less than ideal?

If we recongnize that a child being raised by both of it's biological parents in a commited monogamous marriage is the ideal, then that should be what the state strives for.


how does polygamy hurt children..... please..... please .... please... tell me how

one would think that by economy of scale the care would be better. A few horror stories about abuse in consentual polygamous relationships, does not a case against make. For every horror story in a polygamous relationship i can give you 100 in a monogamous one.

I am not advocating polygamy, I am honestly trying to understand your arguement because it seems like circular reasoning to me.

we can't allow polygamous relationships to stand because they hurt women and children but homosexual ones do not... please explain HOW...




then you are FOR incest and polygamy.... as long as it is consentual.

I've already given an answer to these... and, as I stated in my last response to you, you have not addressed my answer. You have either not read my answer or ignored my answer. Again... please read the responses to your questions before re-asking them.

Here is a re-post of that answer. Please read it and respond to it. If you feel that this is circular reasoning, please explain how. If it is flawed logic, please explain how. If you need further clarification, please ask and be specific... just don't respond as though I've never answerd the question.






Okay. Then all couples for whom reproduction is impossible or extremely unlikely should be banned from marrying unless discovery of that information would involve the invasion of their privacy. Is this the way the State views marriage currently? Is that what you are saying? Is that what you advocate?



Apparently, you aren't even reading my argument... so how could it be circular reasoning. If it is, point out how my argument is circular rather than simply saying that it is so.



Once again, you are not reading my entire argument before responding. There is another exchange, after the post you quote, in which I further clarify my argument.

as long as the relationship is legal then they should be allowed to marry?

so if sodomy were illegal then gay marriage would not be a problem because it is illegal.

seems like an awful thin nail to hang your hat on.

as i said before when one joins a polygamous marriage you marry ALL parties involved, so if tom green were to divorce one of his 5 wives they would get 1/5th of the marital assets which is much larger than just toms income.

please explain to me HOW polygamy hurts women and children.

entspeak:

Re Loving and invidious, and your remarks on that other thread, first, I do stand corrected re just what prompted gordo to initiate that other thread, and second, thanks for proving my point. What was the goal behind the prohibition of interracial marriage? To avoid race-mixing? Simply recall that video that we've all seen, with the one fellow talking about both races being dragged down into some mutant, mongrel race. That only happens with procreation. And so it seems that some were interfering with another's right to procreate with the partner of choice. From Loving, with the emphasized point in bold:

"In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."

Now, for where you lose:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Can't say the bold about the homosexual couple now can we? And so, as I've always tried to get you to acknowledge, well, why is marriage "fundamental"? Answer: Because heterosexual reproduction is necessary for "our very existence and survival". So, yeah, and again, marriage is fundamental, but there's the just stated reason for why that is so.

And I believe that I've recited this before, but from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

So, marriage = found a family = natural and fundamental group unit of our society. And so there's your problem, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, the two groups are not equal [not similarly situated], as the heterosexual union will rather likely produce children while the homosexual union will not. As I've otherwise stated, there does not appear to be so gross an overinclusion as would warrant some any relief, and as I've also related, the remedy for any such gross overinclusion is not your inclusion but the exclusion of the overincluded as well.

I would again suggest that you forget about societal approval of any chosen lifestyle and instead focus on your much better argument, which would have something to do with the proposition that marriage is not the appropriate marker for the need and/or entitlement to certain private and public benefits.

Well, being that the legal definition of marriage was gender-neutral in every state in the country that had a legal definition until 1973, what laws prevented same-sex couples from marrying prior to 1973?



Well, show me where in the current construct of marriage it is set up for multiple people to marry each other. Show me the provisions in the law that relate to the equal distribution of assets that you describe? Do polygamous couples have to get married all at once in order to get the benefits of this asset distribution package? If not, do both parties have to consent to the multiple marriage and asset distribution before one party can marry a third? Does the spouse married first get more of the assets then those spouses added later? Where are the answers to these questions found in the current construct of marriage?




Sure it can. If a homosexual couple raises a child, that child survives and we as a species continue to exist and survive as a species. Or a homosexual couple together raise the child of one of the partners and that child survives and we continue to exist and thrive as a species.