Boy a guy goes and enjoys the holidays and it looks like SDW is getting it from all sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RichL 
It's a shame that the Church of England (and some other religious organisations) feels the need to be so bigoted on this matter. Let's not forget the the Church of England was formed because of Henry VIII's desire to change England's marriage laws.
I'm noting this part of the post because latter in the discussion there are several parties who keep asking how a person can be harmed by gay marriage and acceptance of it. This thread is about that point and you hit it right on the head. When those who declare any disagreement with their view to be bigotry and hatred, then you can bet that they will seek laws that outlaw what they deem to be bigotry and hatred. That means people holding certain views will soon be able to be prosecuted for them. The irony here is that it isn't gay men or women who need to have a law here protecting them but the Church of England which needs a law to protect them against religious bigotry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tonton
Nope, he would choose a different minister. Right now, there are churches that refuse membership to homosexuals. Where are all the lawsuits you want us to fear?
Quote:
Now, do I think that would happen right away? No, I don't. I also don't think you'd see immediate challenges to the limitation of marrying only one other person at a time.
Ah yes, the slippery slope argument.
Quote:
But that's another strong possibility. It's also an argument you have flatly refused to address. We are changing the definition of marriage based on the reasoning that people should be able to marry whomever they choose, whomever they love, etc. Correct? Well, if that's the case, there is absolutely no argument for preventing polygamous marriage.
Completely untrue. There are plenty of scientific arguments against allowing polygamous marriage.
Quote:
All I have to do is claim my genetics prevent me from loving only one person. In fact, I can probably do that right now. How dare you deny me my right to marry two women and the guy that makes my pizza? How dare you oppose me having marriage equality? I demand an end to the bigotry!
No, there's no scientific evidence that such a proclivity exists, and even if there was, there is plenty of scientific evidence (unlike the case with homosexuality) that social disadvantages outweigh the desire to marry more than one person. However (and this is the important part), if in the future there is evidence that the social consequences of polygamy would be minimal, then perhaps yes, it may some day become an accepted activity. And if it does, assuming science supports it... Then... So what? Things change. Society changes. Deal with it.
First and foremost the lawsuits are out there. They are out there on these matters just like they are out there for states and recognition of gay marriage. Here is an example related to a matter even more removed than what you were discussing. It is in a lawsuit and case law may come from it. You cannot simply say that any concerns are invalid in an instance where the lawsuit hasn't had a verdict yet. I assure you that a wide enough search will term up lawsuits regarding gay couples and all manner of civil interactions.
SDW is also correct in noting concerns about polygamy because the case law that a few courts have made to try to justify gay marriage have had horrible reasoning and the reasoning would apply if a similar lawsuit were brought involving polygamy. As an example for religion, whether we all agree with it or not, we have the Lemon test. For gay marriage they have ruled that the state interest did not survive strict scrutiny.
So to declare that SDW is using a slippery-slope you and others should show how gay marriage deserves strict scrutiny to overcome the state interest, but polygamy does not. I haven't seen that case made yet but I'm open to reading about it. From what I've read, right now polygamy would win that fight.
Those against gay marriage argue that the law need only be supported on a rational basis, not strict scrutiny. Rational basis is the same basis that allows the state to declare you must be 18 to marry, 16 to drive, etc. I believe within a few years or perhaps even now that many states would allow gay marriage if it were put to a vote and that allowing it on a rational basis is best. It does not toss out the baby with the bath water. There are compelling but merely rational reasons for the state to legislate marriage. If you raise the bar too high then nothing can jump over it.
Also there are all manner of historic examples of polyamory and proof of polygamy as social norms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BR SDW, I see your slippery slope argument and reverse it.
Fun aside--I'll go further than tonton, however, and welcome legal polygamy. I, too, would like to hear about these alleged scientific disadvantages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SDW2001 Quote:
Originally Posted by
BR SDW, I see your slippery slope argument and reverse it.
Fun aside--I'll go further than tonton, however, and welcome legal polygamy. I, too, would like to hear about these alleged scientific disadvantages.
Uh, my "slippery slope" has a key difference: No one can explain why we wouldn't slide down it. You yourself have acknowledged that these concerns make gay marriage a very imperfect solution. Your conclusion has been "damn the torpedos, we should do it anyway."
Oh, and as for polygamy: Should there be a limit on how many people one can legally marry? Can I list 57 spouses on my tax return? If there is a limit, what should it be, and what is the justification for that number? There are many practical concerns here to say the least. But once again, damn the torpedos!
You shouldn't reply to his stupid cartoon. It is nothing more than a strawman. There aren't practical concerns. Certain courts have declared marriage a right much like speech. Laws must overcome strict scrutiny to survive a legal challenge. The challenges must show they are necessary and/or crucial, not just preferred. Two person marriage is a preference. It isn't necessary. It isn't crucial. Any lawsuits brought against laws against polygamy that cite gay marriage rulings as case law will prevail if the Supreme Court upholds them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RichL It's a matter of equality. Currently we have a system where some people in society are allowed to marry the person that they love and some people can't.
In most western societies, no-one can marry more than one person and that's why the slippery slope argument is silly. Equal marriage isn't about expanding rights but simply levelling the playing field.
Your reasoning is not sound. It amounts to tradition says that marriage is between a man and a woman but because of equality it should change after thousands of years. You then turn around and say that anyone who would argue that marriage ought not be between two people ought to shut up because it's tradition and it's always been done this way.
That's absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BR Burden of proof is on you, not me, buddy.
No the burden of proof is on you to show that the legal test declares that marriage is a fundamental right and thus any laws regulating it must pass strict scrutiny would uphold polygamy laws because of..........X.
I'll give you a hint. You can't because this stuff is still making its way through the courts and X hasn't been well defined. In fact it has been terribly defined which is why it is going to the Supreme Court. If it is ruled on well there we might end up with something along the lines of the Lemon test. However current rulings do not grant the state the right to stop polygamy if case law regarding homosexual marriage is used to challenge it in court. The fact that gay marriage hasn't been affirmed in the highest law of the land and that said case law hasn't been used making a ruling regarding polygamy just means life is a movie instead of a snapshot, not that SDW is engaging in slippery-slope. When you look though the lawsuits are forming and they will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BR Quote:
Originally Posted by
SDW2001
It had the very real potential of rendering the term meaningless.
What does this mean?
It means if nothing can survive strict scrutiny per the courts then the state won't be able to do much to regulate marriage. Fundamental rights are funny that way. 12 year olds can sign themselves out of schools for abortions because health care and privacy are fundamental rights. The same 12 year olds can go hold protest signs down on the street demanding and speaking as they desire. Speech is a fundamental right. Driving isn't a right as a counter-example. Those making the case for gay marriage have declared it is a fundamental right. How does a law survive strict scrutiny when it involves preferences be they man and woman, age, number of partners, etc. The ruling will apply against all marriage criteria, not just the criteria you want changed today come hell or high water.
You and others have heard me go on for probably half a decade saying I support gay marriage but I do not support the way the courts are ruling on it. They are taking the wrong path to get there. Marriage isn't a right because rights can hardly ever be limited. Courts have ruled that even corporations can't have their speech limited in terms of dollars spent. You think the same courts will turn around and rule that the fundamental right to marriage stops at wherever you get your panties in a knot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tonton
No one is ever forcing someone to accept someone else's values. If you think gay sex is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to have it. If you think gay marriage is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to marry someone of the same sex.
Now if what you REALLY want is the right to force YOUR values on someone else, then to that I believe I can rightfully object.
Wrong. If you have your values declared bigoted and wrong then people will legislate against them and take action against you. There is a reason the law that caused the thread to be originated exists. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists because otherwise the Church of England would be sued. Per your reasoning the Boy Scouts have never been sued as an example be we all know they have been sued multiple times all for doing nothing more than doing as you state, declaring that their own membership has to accept their values or leave the club.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BR Quote:
Originally Posted by
SDW2001
I disagree with that entirely.
I am referring to the forced acceptance and embrace of gay rights, even the gay rights agenda. Go into a school or corporate America and see what happens if you don't embrace said ideas. You'll practically be signed up for rehab. As for what you do, I tend to agree. Unless it affects me...redefining marriage does.
How does it affect you? Unless you are gay and in a relationship that you don't want to turn into official marriage, or some sort of self-loathing homosexual that doesn't want his true feelings legitimized, I don't see how. Since I don't think it's either of those two options, I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect you at all.
It is typically not appropriate for public employees, public officials and most public companies to endorse positions that are illegal. Right now there is a debate because gay marriage is largely illegal. Your claims ring hollow because you say that legalization wouldn't affect those opposed. Let me ask you what would happen to a board member of Apple, a school teacher, or a politician who didn't espouse interracial marriage since that is what gay marriage is often compared to by some. Would you declare them fit to do what they do and would you just declare they ought to be left alone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tonton
"Harming"?
You claim you're not a bigot. Then you say "harming". Liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BR You say it will harm marriage but you don't quantify that harm at all. HOW will it harm marriage?
I've given the criteria above. You and anyone else are welcome to show how if marriage is a fundamental right that criteria other than sex of the parties will survive strict scrutiny. I don't think it will. I don't say that as someone who opposes gay marriage. I say that as someone who supports it. However you need the right tool for the job. California has gone about this wrong and I mentioned in another thread how I hope the Supreme Court would rule. If they rule wrong though, it will really hurt the ability to regulate marriage in any form or fashion, not just with regard to gay marriage.
Another example could be Obamacare. Some conservative website ruled that Roberts really did everyone a favor. He ruled Obamacare constitutional not because health care is a right, but because it is a tax and Congress can pass taxes. It can also rescind taxes which means Obamacare can be reversed.
Edited by trumptman - 1/6/13 at 6:36pm
