Stuff Gay People Like

Over at the Opinion L.A. blog, emeritus reasoner Tim Cavanaugh makes the (bi-)curious case for gay marriage as a home-wrecking ball aimed at the straights:

One personal confession: I've always had two journalistic reservations with the whole gay marriage issue. The first is that it's practically impossible to come up with an illustration for a gay marriage story that is not either two men embracing, two women embracing or a wedding cake with two grooms on top. The second is that I've always found the people I agree with on this issue (pro-gay marriage) to be completely boring, and the people I disagree with (anti-gay marriage) fairly interesting. [...]

Gay marriage supporters trip over themselves in their hurry to declare that polygamists or polyandrists or other sexual renegades can never be welcome in good society.

As a political tactic, that rush to conformism makes sense, but I fear it's more than just an act. If I learned anything during my long San Francisco sojourn, it's that gays can be every bit as boring and conservative as straights. Now I don't demand that anybody has to become a bomb-thrower just to get the tax breaks and other privileges straight couples enjoy. But it would be nice for somebody to acknowledge that gay marriage would be worth supporting even (or especially) if it did lead to the parade of horribles, or some consenting-adults portion of that parade, that opponents find so scary and so fascinating.

As a native and recent resident of the Golden State, and a confirmed judicial-activism hypocrite, I'm nothing but tickled pink that for a few months anyway our homosexualist friends (and enemies) will be able to marry and receive full recognition for it from state and local governments. At some very basic level denial of marriage is one of the true Last Acceptable Prejudices, and to the extent the guvmint is in the paper-recognition business, I have never understood why a legal prohibition against Heather's Two Mommies marrying isn't the worst kind of discrimination -- i.e., state-enforced.

I'm glad to be living in a brave new world in which, as this fascinating New York Times magazine feature details, some young gay people won't even know what it's like to live a furtive life of secrecy and shame. Unless they want to, etc.

Steve Chapman made the case against California judicial activism yesterday.

Comments

andy sullivan | May 20, 2008, 11:30am | #

first!

kinnath | May 20, 2008, 11:37am | #

Gay marriage supporters trip over themselves in their hurry to declare that polygamists or polyandrists or other sexual renegades can never be welcome in good society.

Round two:

I'm perfectly willing to allow plural marriages. Although that is likely to require a complete overhaul of the state and federal laws governing rights and priviledges associateed with marriage (a worthy goal as well).

pilight | May 20, 2008, 11:39am | #

I'm still at a loss to understand why marriage requires a government sanction or license at all. What laws join together, let no court put asunder? That ain't the way I learned it.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 11:39am | #

Gay marriage supporters trip over themselves in their hurry to declare that polygamists or polyandrists or other sexual renegades can never be welcome in good society.

Sort of like 19th century Irish-Americans were one of the most racist groups around, despite the fact that they themselves were victims of similar discrimination. The more shunned by society you are, the more important it is for you to be able to shun someone even lower on the ladder.

I'm glad to be living in a brave new world in which, as this fascinating New York Times magazine feature details, some young gay people won't even know what it's like to live a furtive life of secrecy and shame.

Oh, please. In places with high concentrations of homosexuals, public homosexual relationships are already accepted. In places where they're not, do you really think a piece of government paper saying "marriage" on it is going to change that?

Reinmoose | May 20, 2008, 11:40am | #

Wow, you Reason people really are all for the gays aren't you? While I was reading this post I couldn't help but notice your ad on the right of the screen advocating man-boy relationships.

Reinmoose | May 20, 2008, 11:41am | #

Sort of like 19th century Irish-Americans were one of the most racist groups around, despite the fact that they themselves were victims of similar discrimination. The more shunned by society you are, the more important it is for you to be able to shun someone even lower on the ladder.

I thought the same thing when I read the post, Chris.

Bingo | May 20, 2008, 11:43am | #

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

MP | May 20, 2008, 11:45am | #

I'm still at a loss to understand why marriage requires a government sanction or license at all.

Legal convenience regarding making two individuals interchangeable in the eyes of the state when it comes to executing certain transactions.

Isn't that obvious?

B | May 20, 2008, 11:47am | #

Gay marriage turns straight people gay and gay people Mexican. Everyone goes down a notch.

Warren | May 20, 2008, 11:48am | #

Hit and Run was much better when Tim Cavanaugh was in charge.

joe | May 20, 2008, 11:49am | #

In places where they're not, do you really think a piece of government paper saying "marriage" on it is going to change that?

Yes.

As we've seen in school- and workplace-desegregation efforts, the actual lived experience of interacting with people, and seeing them going about their lives, breaks down old stereotypes, changes some people's minds, and causes their children to grow up with a different view right from the beginning.

Support for gay marriage skyrocketed in Massachusetts in the years after the Goodridge decision. The sky didn't fall, the promised orgies in the streets didn't appear, neither divorce nor out-of-wedlock births increased, and the people who were making so much noise were proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be wrong.

People came to see that gay couples were ordinary people, with families and mortgages as pants with asses in them, just like everybody else.

t3knomanser | May 20, 2008, 11:50am | #

Once again, this is why I propose turning the legal machinery of corporate law on the problem of marriage. Instead of having special assignments and giving the government the power to specify who can be in what kinds of relationships, we can instead allow people to define whatever relationships they like, and give the government a single-point-of-contact for interacting with the related group- the fictional-person of the household corporation.

A household corporation would be a special class of taxable not-for-profit with different rules governing how assets are held and taxed. Members of the household corporation hold shares in the household (divided according to the rules administered by the household). Liability is transferable (a not-so-limited liability corporation). The household corporation may adopt children so long as the birth parent is a member of the corporation. Divorce becomes a matter of dividing the corporation's assets among the shareholders; I think this mechanism would require a pre-built contract.

At any rate, any kind of relationship could be adjudicated in this fashion. From the traditional nuclear family to an extended family to a group-marriage to college roommates sharing expenses. Everything from child custody to hospital visitation could be administered by at the level of the household corporation. Consanguinity need never be considered.

Rhywun | May 20, 2008, 11:52am | #

do you really think a piece of government paper saying "marriage" on it is going to change that?

Nice strawman. The object is not to "force" people to change the attitudes toward gays that society has taught them. Rather, it's to *recognize* the fact that attitudes *have* changed.

Reinmoose | May 20, 2008, 11:52am | #

as pants with asses in them

Did you slip that in there on purpose? Is your funny back?

New World Dan | May 20, 2008, 11:52am | #

While I was reading this post I couldn't help but notice your ad on the right of the screen advocating man-boy relationships.

Really? I got hot young chineese women who want to be my wife and love me long time.

Personally, I want the governement to get completely out of the relationship business. If a benefit is transferable, it's transferable. While I can see some rules for dependents might be important, everything else is not government business.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 11:56am | #

joe and Rhywun, you guys need to get together and get your story straight (npi).

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 11:58am | #

While I was reading this post I couldn't help but notice your ad on the right of the screen advocating man-boy relationships.

I think those ads are different for everyone. Doesn't Google decide which ads you get based on your known surfing habits?

(ahem)

P Brooks | May 20, 2008, 11:59am | #

If two (or more) people wish to entwine their lives, for a weekend, or for fifty years, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, the "gay marriage" issue isn't about human dignity, or selfless devotion, it's (as so often is the case) about getting to stick your hand in somebody else's pocket.

Rhywun | May 20, 2008, 11:59am | #

joe and Rhywun, you guys need to get together and get your story straight (npi).

?

joe has his opinions and I have mine.

J sub D | May 20, 2008, 12:01pm | #

Gay marriage supporters trip over themselves in their hurry to declare that polygamists or polyandrists or other sexual renegades can never be welcome in good society.

Like kinnith, I've no problems with convoluted marital relationships. I'll even accept distinctions between full and limited partners. Face it folks, marriage is two things -

A religious ceremony. The Roman Catholics consider it one of the seven sacramants. This is something the government has no business being involved in. None, Zero, Zilch.

It is also a contract about sharing assets and responsibilities. Enforcing contract law is a valid government function, but limiting those contracts to only one group of people (monogamous hetersexuals) is blatant discrimination.

Simple logic leads to the conclusion that if we have government recognized marriage, it is bigotry to exclude gays and lesbians.

MP | May 20, 2008, 12:01pm | #

Doesn't Google decide which ads you get based on your known surfing habits?

C'mon people. Why are you even looking at ads? Firefox and Adblock rulz.

Reinmoose | May 20, 2008, 12:03pm | #

Pssssssssst... New World Dan, Chris...
I was talking about the REASON ad
The one with the picture
Of the man and the boy hugging him...
*cough, cough*

Aw, forget it.

ed | May 20, 2008, 12:03pm | #

it is bigotry to exclude gays and lesbians

What about camels? (Just in case.)

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:03pm | #

Rhywun,

joe just argued for the position that you claim was a strawman.

While I think that if joe did not exist, we would have to create him, he is not my creation.

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:06pm | #

It is the use of your word "force" that make the argument a strawman, Chris.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If you want, you can keep telling yourself that the gay couple isn't "really" married.

You'll just have less company, as people will come to the other opinion in much larger numbers, without any force involved at all.

kinnath | May 20, 2008, 12:09pm | #

it is bigotry to exclude gays and lesbians

What about camels? (Just in case.)

The constitution documents the rights of people, so I believe we can easily limit the discussion to consenting adults.

Reinmoose | May 20, 2008, 12:10pm | #

What about camels? (Just in case.)

I'm sorry, did you really just say that? Are you joking? (surely, right?)
I always wanted to punch people who, while being interviewed on TV, insisted that "next they'll want to marry animals!"

J sub D | May 20, 2008, 12:13pm | #

What about camels? (Just in case.)

Obviously animals, being property, are unable to enter into contracts. No mareriage as it were. If you want to have sex with one, feel free.

OTOH, an ed/pekingese relationship would probably be violating applicable state animal cruelty statutes.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:15pm | #

It is the use of your word "force" that make the argument a strawman, Chris.

I didn't use the word "force", that was Rhywun. So I guess I'm in the clear.

You may well be right about changing public attitudes toward homosexuality, but those changes will be retarded more than advanced by changing the definition of marriage by govt fiat.

kinnath | May 20, 2008, 12:17pm | #

My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace 32 years ago in Georgia. For all practical purposes we were joined in a civil union, but we are recognized as being "married" by all fifty states and the federal government.

As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a civil contract that bestows a wide range of rights and responsibilities.

After my son was born, the priest wouldn't agree to baptize him until my wife and I renewed our vows in the church. The Roman Catholic church is completely within it rights to decide whether or not a "marriage" performed outside the church constitutes holy matrimony.

I see no conflict here.

Rhywun | May 20, 2008, 12:18pm | #

joe just argued for the position that you claim was a strawman

They're two different positions.

Yours implies that the goal of legalizing gay marriage is to change the anti-gay beliefs of people who were raised that way.

joe's says that yes, some people will change their minds with "legal" mechanisms in place.

There's nothing contradictory there.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:19pm | #

I like how people trot out centuries-old legal definitions in support of the idea that more extreme sexual arrangements could never be considered marriages, at the same time as they wish to throw the milennia-old definition of marriage to the four winds.

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:24pm | #

I didn't use the word "force", that was Rhywun. So I guess I'm in the clear. Oops, I guess you're right.

You may well be right about changing public attitudes toward homosexuality, but those changes will be retarded more than advanced by changing the definition of marriage by govt fiat. That was not what history suggests. Desegregation changed people's attitudes across the country, and legalizing gay marriage has changed people's attitudes where it has been implemented. Support for gay marriage on the day the Goodridge decision came out was 1/3 against, 1/3 for, and 1/3 for civil unions only, in Massachusetts. Today, support for gay marriage is something like 50%.

The opponents of marriage equality understand this quite clearly.

Brandon | May 20, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Chris Potter said, "I think those ads are different for everyone. Doesn't Google decide which ads you get based on your known surfing habits?"

I believe the moose was referring to the ad recommending you treat your sugar daddy to a reason subscription for Father's Day.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Rhywun,

No, I questioned whether gay marriage could really change people's attitudes toward gays, in response to Mr Welch's claim that it would do so. I wasn't implying any sinister motive behind gay marriage supporters.

Though I have heard a few who seem to think this will change public opinion, most seem to just want the legal nuts and bolts (which I'm okay with) and the government sanction which comes with the word "marriage" (which I'm not okay with) for their own sake, regardless of the effect on public opinion.

Rhywun | May 20, 2008, 12:25pm | #

I like how people resort to "but it's always been that way" as a last defense against a societal change they don't approve of.

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Baseball is baseball, whether the third baseman is a girl or a boy.

But if there are 15 people on a team, or if there are three teams on the field, the game they're playing is not baseball.

Rhywun | May 20, 2008, 12:27pm | #

in support of the idea that more extreme sexual arrangements could never be considered marriages

It's hardly surprising that gays have little interest in fighting polygamists' battle for them.

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:28pm | #

If the third baseman is a horse or a two-year-old, he's not playing baseball. He's just standing there while other people go about trying to play baseball around him, without a third baseman.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:30pm | #

joe,

Why is it not baseball if there are 15 fielders? Because the rules say so.

So it seems you're saying my arbitrary definition of marriage is hideous and unfair, but your arbitrary definition is right and obvious.

t3knomanser | May 20, 2008, 12:31pm | #

@joe: Maybe we should let the players and the sporting organizations define what exactly constitutes baseball, and let the government just step in to help them adjudicate civil disputes.

That would allow people to start tee-ball leagues, or maybe play volleyball instead, if they like, but still get the same protections as the more recognizable and established baseball teams.

//Not to torture you're tortured metaphor further, or anything.

ed | May 20, 2008, 12:32pm | #

If Leona Helmsley can legally leave her dog a $12 million inheritance, why can't I marry a camel?
I'll tell you why. It's blatant camelism. And there's no place for it in this great country of ours.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:33pm | #

joe,

You realize that your analogy implies that you can be married to nine people, possibly including 7-year-olds, right?

vegetarianhomosexual | May 20, 2008, 12:33pm | #

I am confused.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:34pm | #

It's hardly surprising that gays have little interest in fighting polygamists' battle for them.

Then they lose claim to the phrase "equal marriage for all", don't they?

christiansupremacist | May 20, 2008, 12:35pm | #

I knew it would happen. Ya give the freaks gay marriage and now they want bestiality.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:36pm | #

If the third baseman is a horse or a two-year-old, he's not playing baseball. He's just standing there while other people go about trying to play baseball around him, without a third baseman.

But if a man and woman are running around in the middle of a polo game without a horse, they're not playing polo. So does that mean that only marriage with horses is legitimate?

kinnath | May 20, 2008, 12:36pm | #

But if there are 15 people on a team, or if there are three teams on the field, the game they're playing is not baseball.

Nice cop out joe. After spending all day yesterday promoting equal protection, you give up when faced with the logical conclusion of that chain of thought.

So when gay marriage opponents say its the first step to plural marriage, they are probably right. However, that doesn't justify prohibiting gay marriage.

Charlotte | May 20, 2008, 12:36pm | #

Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

brotherben | May 20, 2008, 12:37pm | #

disclaimer: that was me.
and that other one too.

t3knomanser | May 20, 2008, 12:40pm | #

@Charlotte: I disagree. Marriage is a social convention, not a civil right. The state should not be able to recognize marriage nor give special preference to domestic relationships of a certain variety.

Down with state sanctioned marriage!

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:42pm | #

Well, since we're talking about baseball and gay marriage...

brotherben | May 20, 2008, 12:43pm | #

all bs aside. Can someone tell me if gay marriage is recognized by the feds for tax purposes?

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:45pm | #

Chris Potter,

Why is it not baseball if there are 15 fielders? Because the rules say so.

Baseball was played exactly the same way before and after the rules about African-American players were eliminated.

While it would be played in a very different manner if each team had 15 players.

So, no, it really doesn't make sense to pretend that those two rules are equivalent. One changes how baseball is played, and the other changes who may play baseball.

You realize that your analogy implies that you can be married to nine people, possibly including 7-year-olds, right? No, because it does not. It "implies" that there is a difference between rules about the demographics of those on a baseball team, and rules about the number of people who play it.

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:47pm | #

But if a man and woman are running around in the middle of a polo game without a horse, they're not playing polo. So does that mean that only marriage with horses is legitimate?

You aren't making any sense. The fact that you need a horse to play polo says nothing about people "marrying" horses.

How about less reaching for a gotcha moment, and more intelligence?

Rhywun | May 20, 2008, 12:47pm | #

I wasn't implying any sinister motive behind gay marriage supporters.

Fair enough. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

Then they lose claim to the phrase "equal marriage for all", don't they?

I think it is fair to say that most people--including gays--are interested in a partnership of two. The argument that "if we allow gays to marry then we have to allow group marriage" is silly--as if the gender of the participants is a variable that is in any way comparable to the number of participants (or the species of the participants for those who carry the argument to an even more ridiculous extreme). Just because the genders are different from traditional marriage doesn't automatically give other variances equal justification for official recognition.

PS. I have no problem with (consensual) polygamy. I just think it's a battle for polygamists to fight, not gays.

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:49pm | #

kinnath,

I'm not copping out, and that is not the logical conclusion of any chain of thought I've ever put forward.

That YOU cannot conceive of a difference between plural marriage and monogamous marriage says nothing about my argument.

I'll argue my own positions, thank you. I really don't need you to assign positions to me.

robc | May 20, 2008, 12:49pm | #

You realize that your analogy implies that you can be married to nine people

I marry by National League rules, so I can only be married to eight people. No DHs in this household!

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:50pm | #

joe,

You surely don't think sex between a man and woman is the same thing as sex between people of the same gender.

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:51pm | #

The same, how, Chris.

There are similarities, and differences.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:53pm | #

I think it is fair to say that most people--including gays--are interested in a partnership of two.

Most people are interested in a partnership of one man and one woman, but you pay no heed to that, do you? So why should polygamists pay heed to your two-person marriage definition?

robc | May 20, 2008, 12:54pm | #

There are similarities, and differences.

It is those differences that, ummm, make all the difference.

I see the perspective that say those differences arent big enough, but thats an argument about where to draw the line, not the fact that there is a line that needs to be drawn.

Meatwad | May 20, 2008, 12:54pm | #

It's OK, Shake, because whoever you decide that you are, I still gonna love you. But just not in a gay way, because God makes all people in different sizes and shapes and problems, but he only makes the people he hates gay. That's you. You it, boy. You gay!

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 12:55pm | #

joe,

To illustrate, if the batter had a glove instead of a bat, and the fielders all had bats instead of gloves, the game would change, right?

robc | May 20, 2008, 12:56pm | #

I think it can be realistically argued that a
man-woman-woman-woman
relationship is closer to a
man-woman
relationship than a
man-man
relationship is to
man-woman.

As can the opposite.

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:56pm | #

Yeah, that's a weak argument.

The reason the argument about gay marriage is different than that for polygamy isn't about popularity, but about the different relationships and responsibilities they establish.

If one of my wives and I split up, does she get half of my stuff? Does she get 1/6 if I have five other wives? The law is silent on this.

Whereas recognizeing gay marriages doesn't have this problem, or any similar problems. The existing marriage laws cover the situation just fine.

Gay marriage is about allowing more people to play baseball. Plural marriage is about playing a different game.

MP | May 20, 2008, 12:58pm | #

You surely don't think sex between a man and woman is the same thing as sex between people of the same gender.

sigh...and the thread started off so reasonably as an argument between the traditional conservative "don't rock the boat" argument for keeping marriage defined as is vs. the progressive "positive societal change via government dictate" argument.

Now we're down to arguing which hole is the proper one for sex.

Into the gutter it is!

joe | May 20, 2008, 12:59pm | #

robc,

It is those differences that, ummm, make all the difference.

Those differences are important in many ways, but not in the area of the law.

None of the factors that make gay and straight relationships different change how marriages work, in terms of applying the law.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:00pm | #

Chris Potter,

To illustrate, if the batter had a glove instead of a bat, and the fielders all had bats instead of gloves, the game would change, right?

In the case of baseball, yes.

However, in marriage, the equipment one is using doesn't change how marriage works. Male and female spouses "play" exactly the same way, at least as far as the law is applied.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:01pm | #

If one of my wives and I split up, does she get half of my stuff? Does she get 1/6 if I have five other wives? The law is silent on this.

That's because the law is set up with two-person marriages in mind. There's no reason to think it couldn't be changed to accommodate polygamy.

Also, robc is right about heterosexual polygamy being closer to heterosexual monogamy than it is to homosexual monogamy. Heterosexual polygamy can be thought of as several man-woman marriages coexisting, while gay marriage requires fundamentally altering the definition of marriage.

dhex | May 20, 2008, 1:02pm | #

i support whatever configurations people want to make, but i think it's in everyone's interests (at least in private) to recognize that it is a cop-out to say "well, boys or girls are ok, so long as there's only one of each" isn't an equally arbitrary configuration.

[insert disclaimer about ideal libertarian world where everyone minds their own fucking business here]

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:04pm | #

That's because the law is set up with two-person marriages in mind. There's no reason to think it couldn't be changed to accommodate polygamy.

I agree. My point is, it would have to be changed - lots of marriage law rewritten - if the government recognized plural marriages.

While not a jot or tittle of the law would have to change if we recognized gay marriage, except the references to gender, most of which have already been removed. It would merely be a linguistic change, which would have no substantive effects on how the laws operate at all.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Heterosexual polygamy can be thought of as several man-woman marriages coexisting, while gay marriage requires fundamentally altering the definition of marriage.

Cleaving to one flesh? Forsaking all others? Not just in sex, but in life, and in defining how is part of one's family?

That all goes away if pluaral marriage is recognized.

t3knomanser | May 20, 2008, 1:05pm | #

@joe: So, your argument against polygamy is that we don't have a legal framework in place to handle it.

Which is wrong. Corporate law handles polygamy neatly- the group marriage can be treated as a corporation. With a small amount of legal tinkering, we can abolish state sanctioned marriage in favor of household corporations, which support nuclear families, group marriages, extended families, or any kind of relationship that we have not yet conceived of.

Explain to me why:
1) Sexually active couples deserve special protection, but cohabiting platonic friends do not.
2) Extended families do not get the same protections as a married couple (can an uncle, husband and son all share ownership of property? Not unless they form a corporation or work out some other contractual arrangement!)

You're right- plural marriage offers some pretty nasty legal issues. All of which are neatly resolved by my solution. So, why should we keep marriage in the state at all? Let it revert to the community and let the state interact with relationships via corporate law.

MP | May 20, 2008, 1:06pm | #

to recognize that it is a cop-out to say "well, boys or girls are ok, so long as there's only one of each" isn't an equally arbitrary configuration

There's a strong historical precedence argument that states that it's not arbitrary. Historical precedence arguments aren't absolute, and have proven to be flawed (woman's suffrage, slavery, etc.), but they shouldn't be discounted out of hand.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:06pm | #

None of the factors that make gay and straight relationships different change how marriages work, in terms of applying the law.

Only if the law is completely unconcerned with the existence of a sexual relationship within the marriage. And if that's the case, allowing gays to marry only those of the opposite gender doesn't violate their Loving v Virginia rights, since sexual relationships have nothing to do with the legal aspects of marriage.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:07pm | #

I haven't made an argument against polygamy.

I've explained why changing the law to recognize gay marriage is different from changing the law to recognize plural marriage.

Rice Bingham | May 20, 2008, 1:07pm | #

vegetarianhomosexual | May 20, 2008, 12:33pm | #

I am confused.


It's the lack of protein in your diet.

Episiarch | May 20, 2008, 1:07pm | #

I'd just like to note for those who are interested that Neil's actual identity has been exposed by Jesse on the Katrina rebuild thread. None of us were right. But now we know who to compliment.

t3knomanser | May 20, 2008, 1:08pm | #

@joe: And I'm arguing that we can do it all with one blow, and allow any other configuration by reusing existing legal precedents and abandoning all the ones relating to marriage.

brotherben | May 20, 2008, 1:10pm | #

I may be showing my ignorance, stupidity, naivte, or all of the above but. Once the standard of one man one woman is set aside, doesn't that open the door for other configurations from a purely legal standpoint? Should the difficulty of rewriting the laws for multiple spouses play a role in determining the legality of such marriages?

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:10pm | #

With a small amount of legal tinkering, we can abolish state sanctioned marriage in favor of household corporations, which support nuclear families, group marriages, extended families, or any kind of relationship that we have not yet conceived of. Actually, that would involve rather a large amount of legal tinkering. As opposed to recognizing gay marriages.

Explain to me why:
1) Sexually active couples deserve special protection, but cohabiting platonic friends do not.
2) Extended families do not get the same protections as a married couple (can an uncle, husband and son all share ownership of property? Not unless they form a corporation or work out some other contractual arrangement!)

"Deserve" has nothing to do with what I've written, as I've explained above.

Why "do" they? Becasue the institution of marriage pre-dates the state, and the state merely recognizes this institution.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:12pm | #

Chris Potter,

Only if the law is completely unconcerned with the existence of a sexual relationship within the marriage. Gay people don't have sex?

Oh, you mean "Only if the law in unconcerned with the mechanical details of how married couples have sex."

Which is true; since the law is wholly unconcerned with the mechanical details of how married couples have sex, the differences between man-woman and same-sex sex are meaningless in this debate.

t3knomanser | May 20, 2008, 1:14pm | #

@brotherben: As I've pointed out above, writing laws to handle group marriages can be simpler if we treat marriages as corporations. We already have the legal framework in place to handle that. We could roll out a corporation based marriage system today, without changing an iota of the corporate law. In practice, we'd want to make some minor changes to get a best-fit replacement to really fulfill the role of marriage in the most constructive and expansive fashion possible.

The purpose of marriage is to form a two-person (plus offspring) corporation. I'm merely suggesting we generalize that to a household corporation suitable for any cohabitant or resource pooling relationship.

dhex | May 20, 2008, 1:15pm | #

There's a strong historical precedence argument that states that it's not arbitrary. Historical precedence arguments aren't absolute, and have proven to be flawed (woman's suffrage, slavery, etc.), but they shouldn't be discounted out of hand.

ehh, there's plenty of historical harem-building and the like as well, particularly in deeply power-imbalanced social situations where one dude can basically horde women.

but at this point in history, that's not something which would necessarily happen. i've heard it argued that it would, mind you - that rich men would basically cause a marriage shortage - but i think polygamy is a fairly narrow attraction and that pair bonding, at least short term, is far more attractive to most people.

but that doesn't mean our understanding of what marriage is isn't essentially arbitrary. that's not a bad thing, either! it should serve the needs of individual people, rather than the needs of social powers - just as marriage now isn't about handing off a woman from her father to her husband. (in most situations)

i see joe's point about how it's more of a rule change to start including more people, but since what we're dealing with, in essence, is an extended liability contract, maybe it's time to blow out the game of baseball for something more creative.

dhex | May 20, 2008, 1:16pm | #

since the law is wholly unconcerned with the mechanical details of how married couples have sex

marital rape is no longer legally winked at, though.

brotherben | May 20, 2008, 1:16pm | #

Joe, In the above post,( 1:05pm) were you using biblical referrances to oppose polygamous marriage?

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:17pm | #

t3knomanser,

@joe: And I'm arguing that we can do it all with one blow, and allow any other configuration by reusing existing legal precedents and abandoning all the ones relating to marriage.

Well, then, I agree. We could do that if we wanted.

My point is that recognizing gay marriage doesn't even require us to to that, just apply the marriage laws as they are. Hence, it is a different issue than plural marriage.

t3knomanser | May 20, 2008, 1:17pm | #

@joe: "Why "do" they? Becasue the institution of marriage pre-dates the state, and the state merely recognizes this institution"

That's not a reason. That's an excuse. Extended families also predate the state, but that isn't recognized by the state. Why should the state recognize it?

There's no compelling reason to include marriage as a privileged class of relationship; there are many other relationships that fulfill the same social function; better to let people develop their own relationships and give them a framework to extract social benefits from the government regardless of the mechanics of the relationship.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:18pm | #

joe,

If the law is not concerned with the "mechanical details", then why is it discrimination to only allow men to marry women and vice versa? It's not discrimination for the law to forbid men from sharing a multi-toilet public restroom with women, so why should marriage be any different?

t3knomanser | May 20, 2008, 1:19pm | #

@joe: "My point is that recognizing gay marriage doesn't even require us to to that, just apply the marriage laws as they are."

Well, yes. But I'm attacking the deeper problem- privileged social relationships. Legalizing same sex marriages is a band-aid over a fairly critical bug in our legal frameworks.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:20pm | #

brotherben,

Once the standard of one man one woman is set aside, doesn't that open the door for other configurations from a purely legal standpoint? It certainly opens the door from a moral standpoint. If one type of sexual minority is entitled to have his family recognized, why isn't another type?

But not from a legal standpoint. Eliminating discrimination in how existing marriage laws are implemented is quite a different matter than creating a whole new set of marriage laws.

Douglas Fletcher | May 20, 2008, 1:23pm | #

I don't have anything to say about gay marriage but I have noticed that the few junior high school age kids I know use the term "that's so gay" when they think a situation is silly or stupid.

I suppose it's better to be thought silly or stupid than some kind of unnatural evil-doer. I wonder though if the gay activist groups haven't gone a bit over the deep end if the upcoming crop of kids takes away the impression that their movement is a little loopy.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:24pm | #

brotherben,

Joe, In the above post,( 1:05pm) were you using biblical referrances to oppose polygamous marriage?

No, I was using biblical language to express points about how marriage functions. I chose to do so not because I think bibilican authority is a good argument, but because those phrases are clear, well-recognized language which make the points I wanted to make.

dhex | May 20, 2008, 1:24pm | #

"gay" has been used like that since i can remember (so at least the late 80s).

Col DuBois | May 20, 2008, 1:25pm | #

"Gay people don't have sex?"

Not according to Bill Clinton.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:27pm | #

The state does recognize extended families, t3. They just don't recognize them as a marriage.

And what I wrote was a reason. You asked why the law was that way, and I told you. Don't get mad at me for accurately relating history.

There's no compelling reason to include marriage as a privileged class of relationship Maybe. The point I'm making is that the equal protection doctrine requires that marriage laws recognize marriages between two people of the same sex, and not other household arrangements.

If we adopted laws that recognized the FLDS church's marriages, I'd argue that the state is required to recognize same-sex plural marriages, too.

Pinette | May 20, 2008, 1:29pm | #

Who the hell cares about biblical definitions or historical definitions? equal protection means just that. We don't live in a country whose laws favor one group based on what the fucking bible says.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:29pm | #

Chris Potter,

joe,

If the law is not concerned with the "mechanical details", then why is it discrimination to only allow men to marry women and vice versa?

Because those people love each other and want to form a family. Read your Loving vs. Virginia.

MP | May 20, 2008, 1:30pm | #

It's not discrimination for the law to forbid men from sharing a multi-toilet public restroom with women

Says who? I don't think that that's currently settled case law. Just because a statute is on the books doesn't mean it isn't bound to be invalidated once challenged.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:31pm | #

joe,

The equal protection doctrine deals with individuals, not couples. Your argument, correct me if I'm wrong, is that individuals must be allowed to marry the person they please. But if this is so, how can you justify not allowing a person to marry someone who's already married to someone else?

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:31pm | #

Pinette,

If we don't define what marriage is, how can we say whether the laws surrounding it provide equal protection?

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:32pm | #

Because those people love each other and want to form a family.

So marriage has nothing to do with sex?

brotherben | May 20, 2008, 1:33pm | #

Joe, thanks. But I don't see why there should be a legal difference between discrimination based on gender or number of spouses. I certainly see the historical, societal and religious arguments. The legal, not so much.

Douglas Fletcher | May 20, 2008, 1:34pm | #

""gay" has been used like that since i can remember (so at least the late 80s)."

Yeah I suppose so but these kids use it a lot more often than in those days.

Anyway as they used to say, what-ever...

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:34pm | #

I should say, so loving each other has nothing to do with sex?

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:35pm | #

Chris Potter

But if this is so, how can you justify not allowing a person to marry someone who's already married to someone else?

Did I just go into a time warp?

Did that whole baseball analogy not happen? The discussion about marriages operating differently than polygamous relationships? The example I threw out about the disposition of marital assets when you divorce one of your six wives?

The law forbids you from marrying someone who is already married because it is impossible to have a unions which functions like a marriage in such a situation. You and your spouse cannot enjoy the rights or meet the responsibilities of a marriage (as the law currently defines it), while a gay couple in a monogamous marriage can.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:35pm | #

Douglas Fletcher,

Junior high kids are vicious little creatures. I don't think we should put much stock into their musings either way.

Pinette | May 20, 2008, 1:36pm | #

joe, I'm not saying we shouldn't define marriage, just that the definition has to consider equal protection, not biblical definitions.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:37pm | #

So marriage has nothing to do with sex?

More time warp.

You're just repeating your earlier arguments, which have already been answered.

Do you know when that usually happens?

kinnath | May 20, 2008, 1:37pm | #

I'm not copping out, and that is not the logical conclusion of any chain of thought I've ever put forward.

It is the logical conclusion of "equal protection" of individuals rights with respect to the state. Even Scalia said that when he was bitching about the majority decision overturning the sodomy laws in Texas.

I agree. My point is, it would have to be changed - lots of marriage law rewritten - if the government recognized plural marriages.

And I said that same thing in the second post of the thread.

Cleaving to one flesh? Forsaking all others? Not just in sex, but in life, and in defining how is part of one's family?

That all goes away if pluaral marriage is recognized.

So what. The law shouldn't care about what marraige vows are taken by the people involved. The state should only care about the rights and responsibilities associated with the civil marraige contract.

But not from a legal standpoint. Eliminating discrimination in how existing marriage laws are implemented is quite a different matter than creating a whole new set of marriage laws.

If existing laws are discriminatory based on a script interpretation of equal protection, then they must be jetisoned or altered.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:38pm | #

brotherben,

But I don't see why there should be a legal difference between discrimination based on gender or number of spouses.

Because people in plural marriages cannot enjoy the rights and live up to the responsibilities of a marriage contract, as defined in existing law. Gay couples can.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:38pm | #

You're just repeating your earlier arguments, which have already been answered.

Do you know when that usually happens?

Yes -- when you're not addressing my points and bringing up irrelevant analogies.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:39pm | #

I should say, so loving each other has nothing to do with sex?

It has nothing to do with the mechanics of how you have sex. It has nothing to do with whether you and your loved one have similar genitals.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:41pm | #

Pinette,

Pinette | May 20, 2008, 1:36pm | #

joe, I'm not saying we shouldn't define marriage, just that the definition has to consider equal protection, not biblical definitions.

I agree. Nonetheless, the language I quoted does a good job expressing the concepts I wished to convey, and I'm not going to spurn a good source of clear language.

Rhywun | May 20, 2008, 1:44pm | #

Most people are interested in a partnership of one man and one woman, but you pay no heed to that, do you?

Most *heterosexual* people, you mean. The point is, pair-bonding is normal for gays AND straights. You, on the other hand, seem to think that being gay is in some way equivalent to being a polygamist; after all, they are both "different" from the heterosexual-couple norm, so they must be somehow equivalent to each other.

Also, you seem ignorant of the fact that gays tend to be incapable of a romantic partnership with someone of the opposite sex. Polygamists, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of restricting themselves to just one partner.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:45pm | #

It has nothing to do with the mechanics of how you have sex. It has nothing to do with whether you and your loved one have similar genitals.

So, you would have no problem with a sterilized father and daughter getting married to each other (so long as the son has reached an appropriate age)? There won't be any children arising from such a union, so there's no genetic concerns, and loving each other doesn't have anything to do with genetic similarity, so why not?

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:45pm | #

kinnath,

It is the logical conclusion of "equal protection" of individuals rights with respect to the state.

No, it is not, for the reasons I've already explained. Please, feel free to critique them. Or address them. Just saying "nuh-uh" and ignoring them isn't going to prove your point, in the fact of arguments to the contrary.

Even Scalia said that when he was bitching about the majority decision overturning the sodomy laws in Texas. Fuck Scalia, he'll say anything convenient to get the result he wants.

The state should only care about the rights and responsibilities associated with the civil marraige contract. And as I've written already, the rights and responsibilities of marriage, as currently defined in the law, cannot be met in a plural marriage. Ergo, there is not way to apply the marriage laws on the books to plural marriages in a non-discriminiatory manner.

Pinette | May 20, 2008, 1:45pm | #

i agree with joe here,
if 1000 people entered into a single marriage contract together in order to enjoy the (real or perceived) legal benefits of marriage, their arrangement would in no way resemble a marriage at all.
that said, polygamy should most definitely be legal. Why the hell should the state care if those 1000 people want to consider themselves married?

Chris Potter's editor | May 20, 2008, 1:45pm | #

(so long as the daughter has reached an appropriate age)

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:47pm | #

Potter, you are flopping in this argument.

Yes -- when you're not addressing my points and bringing up irrelevant analogies.

I've addressed every single one of your points, the analogy is not irrelevant, and I've explained why.

Instead of even attempting to respond to the counter-arguments I raised, you are just repeating your earlier arguments as if you hadn't seen the rebuttals.

That's what people do when they're losing.

Michael C. Thompson II | May 20, 2008, 1:49pm | #

People like Chris Potter can sit around trying to come up with as many ridiculous reasons as they like to prevent gay marriage, but the sea change has already started and it doesn't even matter what people like him have to say. America is growing increasingly ready to accept harmless gay marriage, and social conservatives are going crazy trying to stop it, all in vain.

Liberty!

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:51pm | #

So, you would have no problem with a sterilized father and daughter getting married to each other (so long as the son has reached an appropriate age)?

Because the law cannot discriminate on the basis of physical disability, and distinguishing between a sterlized vs. fertile male would do so.

brotherben | May 20, 2008, 1:52pm | #

Joe, it only took 3-4 tries but I now see your point. thanks

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 1:53pm | #

Most *heterosexual* people, you mean.

No, I meant most people period -- in the same sense you meant it when you said that most people want couples rather than larger groups.

The point is, pair-bonding is normal for gays AND straights.

And heterosexual marriage is normal for Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc. The fact that multiple groups consider something normal doesn't make it so, does it?

You, on the other hand, seem to think that being gay is in some way equivalent to being a polygamist; after all, they are both "different" from the heterosexual-couple norm, so they must be somehow equivalent to each other.

Not at all. As I said above, heterosexual polygamy has much more in common with heterosexual monogamy than homosexual monogamy. If I said that allowing Buddhists to receive communion in the Catholic Church would only make sense if we also allowed Hindus to do so, that doesn't mean I'm saying Hindus and Buddhists are the same thing.

kinnath | May 20, 2008, 1:55pm | #

Fuck Scalia, he'll say anything convenient to get the result he wants.

And a great many conservatives were thoroughly pissed at Scalia, because his published dissent can now be used by supportors of gays and plural marriage to say that the US consitution does not allow laws that prohibit gay or plural marriage.

Sometimes the written dissents are more important than the majority decision.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:55pm | #

And heterosexual marriage is normal for Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc.

Not for the gay ones.

This is about individual rights.

Pinette | May 20, 2008, 1:55pm | #

chris potter, i don't see what difference it makes what MOST people want anyway, at least as it pertains to this argument. please explain

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:57pm | #

Rhwuyn is using "normal" to refer to the innate drives that define what it is to be human. It is normal to get hungry. It is normal to form pair bonds.

Chris Potter is using "normal" to refer to social conventions.

The former are relevant in determining the scope of our rights. The latter are not.

joe | May 20, 2008, 1:57pm | #

It is normal for me to misspell other commenters' names.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 2:00pm | #

I've addressed every single one of your points, the analogy is not irrelevant, and I've explained why.

Yes, you offered explanations, but I didn't find them convincing. It was not just me who found weaknesses in your baseball analogy, for instance, or disagreed with your protestations that the difficulties with changing the law to suit polygamy are the reason you don't support it.

That's what people do when they're losing.

It is up to the readers of the thread to decide who's making the more convincing argument, not the arguers.

Rhywun | May 20, 2008, 2:02pm | #

As I said above, heterosexual polygamy has much more in common with heterosexual monogamy than homosexual monogamy.

Another ridiculous assertion that shows you have little understanding of sexual preference. You focus on the body parts rather than the dynamics of the relationship.

brotherben | May 20, 2008, 2:04pm | #

"It is up to the readers of the thread to decide who's making the more convincing argument, not the arguers"

I have paraphrased this in my mind and come to the conclusion that you have no interaction with women.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 2:06pm | #

chris potter, i don't see what difference it makes what MOST people want anyway, at least as it pertains to this argument. please explain

I was referring to Rhywun's comment way upthread, in which he stated that while gay marriages must be allowed, polygamous marriages could still be forbidden because *most* people are interested in forming couples.

I was throwing that "logic" back in his face, showing how it could be used against gay marriage just as easily. I don't really think that what most people think is important to morality, no.

Rhwuyn is using "normal" to refer to the innate drives that define what it is to be human. It is normal to get hungry. It is normal to form pair bonds.

joe, everyone gets hungry. Not everyone is interested in forming pair bonds -- are you saying such people aren't human?

Brian Courts | May 20, 2008, 2:08pm | #

Because the law cannot discriminate on the basis of physical disability, and distinguishing between a sterlized vs. fertile male would do so.

If it is a voluntary sterilization, as the vast majority of them are, how is that a "disability"?

At any rate, trying to come up with logically consistent ways to expand marriage just enough to allow same-sex couples but not too much to start allowing other stuff seems like a pointless exercise. Allowing everyone the freedom to define their own personal relations however they wish, with no special privileges from the state, is the only truly "equal" protection.

Though, for the record, I'll say that allowing same-sex marriage is at least moving in the right direction. It's worse to limit marriage to two-person heterosexual couples than to limit it to two-person couples regardless of sex, but that's still worse than getting the state out of worrying about what constitutes a "proper" family or relationship altogether.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 2:09pm | #

Because the law cannot discriminate on the basis of physical disability, and distinguishing between a sterlized vs. fertile male would do so.

Uh, if you'd be allowed to marry only if you're infertile, that would only be discrimination if fertility is a disability. Wouldn't that mean being able to walk is a disability also, and the govt owes me Social Security back payments for all these years?

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 2:12pm | #

I have paraphrased this in my mind and come to the conclusion that you have no interaction with women.

lol

Or maybe it's like the utopian fantasies of a wage slave working in a chicken processing plant dreaming of a perfect society where everyone is well-fed and equal and no one tells anyone else what to do...

joe | May 20, 2008, 2:13pm | #

Actually, Chris, my wife's cousin doesn't get hungry. After-effect of brain surgery. He's never going to be hungry again.

That's not normal. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's normal. He's still human, though.

brotherben | May 20, 2008, 2:17pm | #

Joe, does he find it pleasurable to eat a meal? or it just another task in his day?

joe | May 20, 2008, 2:17pm | #

Brian Courts,

If it is a voluntary sterilization, as the vast majority of them are, how is that a "disability"?

Someone who has his leg amputated voluntarily is still considered disabled. There are people who have so much chronic pain that they've had their spinal chords severed surgically. It doesn't make any difference before the law.

Uh, if you'd be allowed to marry only if you're infertile, that would only be discrimination if fertility is a disability. Wouldn't that mean being able to walk is a disability also, and the govt owes me Social Security back payments for all these years? None of that makes any sense, nor bears any relationship to what I wrote. INFERTILITY is a disability. You cannot discriminate based on disability, one way or the other.

Rhywun | May 20, 2008, 2:17pm | #

I was throwing that "logic" back in his face, showing how it could be used against gay marriage just as easily.

Only by ignoring biology. Your arguments are reminiscent of the "gay men are perfectly free to marry women" school of uninformed thought.

joe | May 20, 2008, 2:18pm | #

brotherben,

I think he can enjoy the taste of food, and sometimes even seeks it out for that reason, but it's usually just a task.

Even the pleasure of food is diminished, when it doesn't help to satiate hunger, apparently.

joe | May 20, 2008, 2:19pm | #

Your arguments are reminiscent of the "gay men are perfectly free to marry women" school of uninformed thought.

And the "people who hate the Federalists are still free to praise John Adams" school of First Amendment law.

Brian Courts | May 20, 2008, 2:22pm | #

Rhwuyn is using "normal" to refer to the innate drives that define what it is to be human. It is normal to get hungry. It is normal to form pair bonds.

Chris Potter is using "normal" to refer to social conventions.

Life-long monogamous pair-bonds are not normal in a biological way like hunger. I think anthropologists would say it was not even practically normal for most of human evolution (and even today many debate whether it is normal given peoples actual behavior). To that extent it is much more a social convention than hunger, or the desire for sex, and thus not a good way to distinguish your argument.

Again, this seems to me to be too much of a logical stretch aimed at expanding the definition just enough but not too much.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 2:25pm | #

You cannot discriminate based on disability, one way or the other.

Then where are my Social Security payments? And why am I not allowed to compete in the Special Olympics?

kinnath | May 20, 2008, 2:25pm | #

Upon further review, Scalia only said that the ruling in Lawrence undermined laws prohibiting gay marraige. It would have been other, hyperventilating conservative commentators that said it also undermined laws against plural marriage -- not that they're wrong.

Brian Courts | May 20, 2008, 2:25pm | #

Someone who has his leg amputated voluntarily is still considered disabled.

joe, I suppose that is true, though I'm not sure that similar enough as even a voluntary amputation is done for a serious medical condition.

The obvious question, rather than arguing by analogy, is: is sterilization considered a disability today? I don't know the answer, but I suspect not as I've never heard of it.

Oh, and the second part of your comment is responding to someone else as I didn't say that, though it sort of looks like I did from your response.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 2:28pm | #

Your arguments are reminiscent of the "gay men are perfectly free to marry women" school of uninformed thought.

And yours are reminiscent of the "polygamists are free to marry unmarried people" school of uniformed thought. Brian Courts hits the nail on the head -- you're trying to cast a net just wide enough to catch what you want and avoid what you don't, and it's just not possible.

Sulla | May 20, 2008, 2:30pm | #

Because people in plural marriages cannot enjoy the rights and live up to the responsibilities of a marriage contract, as defined in existing law. Gay couples can.

What are these rights and resposibilities? Here are the few I can think of:
Tax law generally recognizes two individuals for a joint return - OTOH the third spouse could be considered a dependent, or simply file a separate return.

Intestate succession - tweak to provide equal rights for every other spouse; or require wills.

I agree that SSM can be implemented by merely allowing a couple to get a marriage license. Polygamous marriage can be implemented almost as easily.

FWIW, I completely agree with t3knomanser's solution.

brotherben | May 20, 2008, 2:31pm | #

Chris Potter, to get soc.sec. disabilty insurance payments you have to apply for them. They are payed from the date of that application forward. They have a laundry list of allowable disabling conditions.

As for the special olympics, stick to the physical contests my friend.


teehee

kinnath | May 20, 2008, 2:31pm | #

So Chris, have you been arguing that "if" one accepts that equal protection allows gay marriage that it must also allow plural marriage?

I just want to keep things straight.

robc | May 20, 2008, 2:32pm | #

Because those people love each other and want to form a family.

So marriage has nothing to do with sex?

I also didnt realize love was a requirement.

robc | May 20, 2008, 2:35pm | #

Polygamists, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of restricting themselves to just one partner.

Apparently not.

Chris Potter | May 20, 2008, 2:37pm | #

kinnath,

If such acceptance comes from the argument paralleling Loving v Virginia, that is, that a person should be allowed to marry anyone they want, then yes, one must accept that people can marry others who are already married to someone else.

I ultimately believe that argument to be fallacious, but I'm trying to stay focused here on the topic of the original post, that same-sex marriage advocates tend to furiously reject the idea of expanding marriage any further.

robc | May 20, 2008, 2:37pm | #

That's what people do when they're losing.

Thats also what people do when their original counter-arguments were correct and the rebuttals were worthless.

robc | May 20, 2008, 2:40pm | #

It is normal to form pair bonds.

Based on divorce rates, STD transmission rates and etc. I would say "No it isnt".

kinnath | May 20, 2008, 2:42pm | #

If such acceptance comes from the argument paralleling Loving v Virginia, that is, that a person should be allowed to marry anyone they want, then yes, one must accept that people can marry others who are already married to someone else.

Got it.

I ultimately believe that argument to be fallacious, . . .

I disagree, but that's not important.

. . . but I'm trying to stay focused here on the topic of the original post, that same-sex marriage advocates tend to furiously reject the idea of expanding marriage any further.

Right, it seems "unfair" for gay marriage advocates to argue that marriage should be open to them but not "those other people".

joe | May 20, 2008, 2:52pm | #

Brian Courts,

Life-long monogamous pair-bonds are not normal in a biological way like hunger. The "life-long" part, certainly. There is nothing normal in a biological way about even living this long.

But "forming pair bonds" - th