• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Its official... Same sex marriage April 27th

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
We need to be fair to the anti-gay marriage arguments, as we debunk them.

Originally posted by: shira
First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.
There's more of a point to their argument than the pro-gay-marriage usually recognizes.

Let's take the Medal of Honor. Say the President decided to keep awarding it for what it's awarded for now - but to add, say, big political donors, or soldiers who find ways to save the government a lot of money. Nothing changed for those who get it for the usual reason, but most of us would say it was diluted, and you could describe opponents as 'defending' the traditional Medal of Honor.

So, they have more of a point than just 'there's no difference'; they see the same sort of dilution.

Arguing to them that there's no difference doesn't persuade them, because to them there is, just as arguing there's no difference with the Medal of Honor wouldn't be convincing.
I understand that you're trying to be principled here, but the logic you're using as an example would much more lead to the conclusion that in order for a couple to be allowed to marry, they should be required to demonstrate a threshold level of dedication, commitment, and maturity. For example, allowing two eighteen-year-olds who've known each other exactly one month and are "in love" to marry is clearly a much greater "lowering of standards" than allowing two thirty-something gay men who've been together five years to marry.

The "principle" that "allowing just anyone to marry cheapens the institution of marriage" is very, very imprecise, and leads rapidly to logical conclusions that the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't intend. Just as the "child rearing" argument leads to ridiculous conclusions.

Even beyond this, what you have to realize is that for someone to honestly "feel" that allowing gays to marry is a "reduction in standards" they have to be operating under the assumption that there's something inherently wrong with being gay. Now, where do you suppose THAT sentiment comes from? Damn right, religion. Gays are viewed as debased sinners, and allowing gays to marry is viewed as condoning sin. THAT's what this is really all about. But anti-gay leaders (not hoi polloi who can easily be swayed by demagoguery) know that's a non-starter that would be thrown out by the courts. So rather than argue what they really feel, we have what amount to fake arguments and scare tactics to win over the public and sustain majorities at the voting booth.

This is done because most people don't have the intellecutal sophistication to really think through their assumptions. So, for example, you hit them with the child-rearing argument and to the masses it makes sense. The fact that it's all "surface" - that can't stand any degree of scrutiny - is irrelevant. For the typically shallow thinkers among us, it's served its purpose: it reinforces their gut feeings, and they're convinced (at least for the short term).

The problem they have is, that the difference rests on bigotry. In the case of the Medal of Honor, there is a qualitative difference between the traditional standard and the new standard, so there is justification for saying it cheapens it. On gay marriage, the diffference they think there is is caused by *their bigotry* to see gays as less deserving, as not having 'real' marriages - so to them it's rea. But they're wrong about gays.

In fact, there areguments generally rest on just that bigotry - including the 'marry your car' type arguments they make.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
I don't think they know their arguments are without merit. They're generally just bigots grasping for justification, and thinking they have it with these bogus arguments.

As long as they can feel they're part of a community united 'for principles' to 'oppose the wrongful gay marriage advocates', it's easy for them to kep 'fighting the good fight'.

I think we should all look from time to time at the photos of white mobs who gathered to menacingly threaten the admission of black students in the early 60's. Look at the 'Leave it to Beaver' appearance middle class white people - and the twisted hate on their faces for such a misguided cause, to 'defend' their state honor or whatever the catch phrase was.

Bigots grasping for justification.
Bigotry persists because bigots cannot allow themselves to question their strongly-held beliefs. If every one of their so-called arguments were convincingly countered, they would remain unswayed, because they would still hold the the same fundamental beliefs. For them, their beliefs and their sense of self-worth are joined together so tightly that defending their beliefs amounts to defending their very existence. They are lost causes - unreachable.

Fortunately, only a small minority are true bigots. The rest ("quasi-bigots"?) ARE reachable. They see that same-sex marriage isn't hurting anyone. They don't see anyone arguing for legalization of polygamy or beastiality. Their own marriages feel the same. That gay couple two blocks over has a daughter, too. And she's adorable and normal. When they meet at the PTA meeting, the gay couple is just as worried about their child's education as they are. Everything seems okay. There are no alarm bells. Eventually, they too see the bigots and their arguments for what they really are: BS.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
I never understood the whole fuss about same-sex marriage. We have this for already years and gay couples can even adopt childeren!! The world is still turning, our society or country has not collapsed.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
I can't help but think people were saying the exact same thing half a century ago during the civil rights movement...
Tired arguement... apples and oranges... gay agenda does not equal civil rights movement. Not by a longshot.

Gays can do anything anyone else does now.
except get married
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,166
606
126
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Perknose
But you're not fooling anyone; you're especially not fooling me.
Are you fucking stupid? I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage, I've said it many, many times. I'm sure if you search you'll even see the post where I said how I used to be against it, but then I grew up and now I have no problem with it.
Grow up some more, you fucking tool, you've got a long way to go. Just go do it elsewhere and on your own time, and spare the rest of us your growing pains:

Originally posted by: JD50
I am against gay marriage for several reasons, sanctity of marriage and nature being the main ones.
Every time the subject of gay marriage comes up, you try like hell to equate it with incest and polygamy. You are in one big ball of denial about what lies in your ugly little heart, but again, you're fooling NO ONE:

Originally posted by: JD50
Sanctity of marriage - if you let anyone marry anyone/anything and as many of them as you like certainly does devalue marriage, just like letting a high school dropout into Harvard devalues a degree from Harvard (I was not equating the two, just throwing out an example). Nature - well, obviously they can't have kids.
The subject of gay marriage comes up yet again and here you are, like clockwork, with NINE freaking posts. You just can't help yourself, can you?
So, I say that I used to be against gay marriage, but now I have no problem with it, and your response is to dig up old posts (without links or dates, obviously trying to hide the fact that they are old posts) trying to prove that I am against gay marriage?
:confused:

Umm....hello, dipshit, I just said that I am no longer against gay marriage, but I used to be. I guess you are pretty fucking stupid.

 

Rangoric

Senior member
Apr 5, 2006
532
0
71
Polygamy is different from Same Sex Marriage.

Just look at it from the tax angle. Did you happen to see the tax tables for having more then 1 partner?

No?

Shoot, how about insurance. How many policies are for "all spouses", rather than "your spouse"?

The reason that Same Sex Marriage is not on the same level of Polygamy in terms of law, is that Same Sex Marriage already fits existing laws just fine once you change the sex of one of the participants. Polygamy is a very different set of contractual and legal issues ASIDE from just saying "ok no more discrimination based on number of people involved in marriage".

As such, Polygamy is unrelated.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,144
894
126
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Polygamy is different from Same Sex Marriage.

Just look at it from the tax angle. Did you happen to see the tax tables for having more then 1 partner?

No?

Shoot, how about insurance. How many policies are for "all spouses", rather than "your spouse"?

The reason that Same Sex Marriage is not on the same level of Polygamy in terms of law, is that Same Sex Marriage already fits existing laws just fine once you change the sex of one of the participants. Polygamy is a very different set of contractual and legal issues ASIDE from just saying "ok no more discrimination based on number of people involved in marriage".

As such, Polygamy is unrelated.
How many insurance companies 10 years ago covered gay live in's? Probably none. Now they all do. My point? Just because the issue isnt being handled now doesnt mean it never will be. Sure, tax code will need to be re-written. So what?
 

Rangoric

Senior member
Apr 5, 2006
532
0
71
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Polygamy is different from Same Sex Marriage.

Just look at it from the tax angle. Did you happen to see the tax tables for having more then 1 partner?

No?

Shoot, how about insurance. How many policies are for "all spouses", rather than "your spouse"?

The reason that Same Sex Marriage is not on the same level of Polygamy in terms of law, is that Same Sex Marriage already fits existing laws just fine once you change the sex of one of the participants. Polygamy is a very different set of contractual and legal issues ASIDE from just saying "ok no more discrimination based on number of people involved in marriage".

As such, Polygamy is unrelated.
How many insurance companies 10 years ago covered gay live in's? Probably none. Now they all do. My point? Just because the issue isnt being handled now doesnt mean it never will be.
Nope sorry, see insurance company policies covered a single partner. Now they REALLY do.

See, it is changing it from being discriminatory (sorry, only a partner of another sex). Nothing changes on the written policies except for the exclusion of same sex partners.

Introducing polygamy to it changes the rates for those involved and changes the number of people covered by the plan of a certain age group.

Sure, tax code will need to be re-written. So what?
That's why it's unrelated to the argument of Same Sex Marriage. Same Sex marriage would change nothing in how the Tax Codes are written, changes no statistics, and does not change the number of people involved in a contract.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,144
894
126
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Polygamy is different from Same Sex Marriage.

Just look at it from the tax angle. Did you happen to see the tax tables for having more then 1 partner?

No?

Shoot, how about insurance. How many policies are for "all spouses", rather than "your spouse"?

The reason that Same Sex Marriage is not on the same level of Polygamy in terms of law, is that Same Sex Marriage already fits existing laws just fine once you change the sex of one of the participants. Polygamy is a very different set of contractual and legal issues ASIDE from just saying "ok no more discrimination based on number of people involved in marriage".

As such, Polygamy is unrelated.
How many insurance companies 10 years ago covered gay live in's? Probably none. Now they all do. My point? Just because the issue isnt being handled now doesnt mean it never will be.
Nope sorry, see insurance company policies covered a single partner. Now they REALLY do.

See, it is changing it from being discriminatory (sorry, only a partner of another sex). Nothing changes on the written policies except for the exclusion of same sex partners.

Introducing polygamy to it changes the rates for those involved and changes the number of people covered by the plan of a certain age group.

Sure, tax code will need to be re-written. So what?
That's why it's unrelated to the argument of Same Sex Marriage. Same Sex marriage would change nothing in how the Tax Codes are written, changes no statistics, and does not change the number of people involved in a contract.
What would be the difference if it was a family plan? AFAIK there's no limit on the number of persons covered. Problem solved. At least for insurance. But youre right-in THIs case theyre unrelated, as the tax consequences ARE different. But from a marriage standpoint, its related. Its an alternative lifestyle (alternative meaning different than what is considered "normal), by which the law prevents consenting adults from living the way they want. Which is on topic. 10 years ago same sex marriage was illegal. Or rather, the law didnt recognize it. Same state polygamous marriage is in today. Its an alternative lifestyle that the law doesnt recognize. Thus, related.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
By bringing polygamy into the same-sex marriage debate opponents of same sex marriage hope to turn people away from supporting same sex marriage.

guilt by association
red herring
reverse transfer technique

call it what you will....it's fallacious propaganda and it does not present any argument on the basis of the same-sex issue.

But opponents won't stop trying like hell to tie polygamy and homosexuality together.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,144
894
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
By bringing polygamy into the same-sex marriage debate opponents of same sex marriage hope to turn people away from supporting same sex marriage.

guilt by association
red herring
reverse transfer technique

call it what you will....it's fallacious propaganda and it does not present any argument on the basis of the same-sex issue.

But opponents won't stop trying like hell to tie polygamy and homosexuality together.
You arent getting it. Its not about tying homosexuality and polygamy together. In fact, theyre very different (which you know). The point is about allowing consenting adults the right to marry. The sex and the number of people is irrelevant. Its a matter of the law allowing adults marry who they want. Whats so difficult to understand about that?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,710
25,806
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
By bringing polygamy into the same-sex marriage debate opponents of same sex marriage hope to turn people away from supporting same sex marriage.

guilt by association
red herring
reverse transfer technique

call it what you will....it's fallacious propaganda and it does not present any argument on the basis of the same-sex issue.

But opponents won't stop trying like hell to tie polygamy and homosexuality together.
You arent getting it. Its not about tying homosexuality and polygamy together. In fact, theyre very different (which you know). The point is about allowing consenting adults the right to marry. The sex and the number of people is irrelevant. Its a matter of the law allowing adults marry who they want. Whats so difficult to understand about that?
Of course the funny thing about this whole discussion is that it only provides more ammunition for the legalization of polygamy. It does nothing to the case for legalizing gay marriage.
 

reallyscrued

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2004
2,613
5
81
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yeah, I don't know why this is so hard for them to understand. Our political system (constitutional republic) is specifically designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Legislative bodies can pass anything they want; it's not their job to determine constitutionality, that's up to the courts. And unsurprisingly, legislature passes a lot of unconstitutional laws, which the court then throws out. The fact that you guys find something wrong with this system honestly scares the crap out of me. Do you propose we just scrap the Bill of Rights? It seems like what you guys want is pure democracy where the majority can simply walk all over everyone else. Fortunately the founders of our country had a lot more sense and built safeguards into the political system to prevent these abuses.
No it isn't. It was designed to protect the majority from oppression by a single leader.

And the fact that you think its scary there's issues in the United States' legal foundation scares the hell out of me. Nothing is perfect, get it through your thick skull. You're probably one of those people that think because something is branded "American" it is constitutionally in line. Did we forget the founding fathers also let us amend the constitution? It is a living document.

And I don't know if you've actually looked out into the world lately, but guess what? The majority does walk over everyone else... Democracy is the idea that more than half the people are right more than half the time. And that's what's in place.

I'm for gay marriage. I'm for inter-racial marriage. Inter-species, inter-galactic, I don't give a shit. The government needs to stay out of people's personal lives to begin with, but like someone said before, that's never gonna happen.

EDIT: Oh yeah...and polygamy too. Forgot that one got tangled in here. :roll:
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1

You arent getting it. Its not about tying homosexuality and polygamy together. In fact, theyre very different (which you know). The point is about allowing consenting adults the right to marry. The sex and the number of people is irrelevant. Its a matter of the law allowing adults marry who they want. Whats so difficult to understand about that?
I get it. Maybe you are unwilling to understand my point?

The two issues are very different. And part of that difference is that polygamy carries a ton more negative baggage than homosexuality currently does.

And when both are named in the same sentance then there is a transference of that baggage from one to the other.

Also, vice versa. As Eskimo pointed out earlier.

Which is why logically no one should be intermingling the two issues. Because if Gay marriage had all the negative associations and baggage that plural marriage currently does then gay marriage goes NO WHERE because people won't support it.

But I know that that is the intent of SOME anti-gay people out there. And that is not a valid argument against gay marriage. That is only a red herring.

Also, there are current cases and legal proceedings out there wrt gay marriage. No one has taken up the cause for plural marriage...yet.

At least there has been no national movement that I can think of.


 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
28,430
14,350
136
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: JD50


Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.
404 Hypocrisy Not Found

The argument I made is that polygamy doesn't fall under the equal protection clause because no state has allowed anyone to marry more than one person, so it can't be argued that way in court.

Gay marriage works because the only way to discriminate against it violates the equal protection clause and can be argued that way in court.
Cool, so let's make it illegal for gays to marry in every state. Hell, why stop there? Let's make it inter-racial marriage illegal in every state too. It wouldn't be discrimination because no state would allow it. Brilliant!
Actually inter-racial marriage was illegal in Alabama until the year 2000. Go figure!!

 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Originally posted by: reallyscrued
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yeah, I don't know why this is so hard for them to understand. Our political system (constitutional republic) is specifically designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Legislative bodies can pass anything they want; it's not their job to determine constitutionality, that's up to the courts. And unsurprisingly, legislature passes a lot of unconstitutional laws, which the court then throws out. The fact that you guys find something wrong with this system honestly scares the crap out of me. Do you propose we just scrap the Bill of Rights? It seems like what you guys want is pure democracy where the majority can simply walk all over everyone else. Fortunately the founders of our country had a lot more sense and built safeguards into the political system to prevent these abuses.
No it isn't. It was designed to protect the majority from oppression by a single leader.

And the fact that you think its scary there's issues in the United States' legal foundation scares the hell out of me. Nothing is perfect, get it through your thick skull. You're probably one of those people that think because something is branded "American" it is constitutionally in line. Did we forget the founding fathers also let us amend the constitution? It is a living document.

And I don't know if you've actually looked out into the world lately, but guess what? The majority does walk over everyone else... Democracy is the idea that more than half the people are right more than half the time. And that's what's in place.

I'm for gay marriage. I'm for inter-racial marriage. Inter-species, inter-galactic, I don't give a shit. The government needs to stay out of people's personal lives to begin with, but like someone said before, that's never gonna happen.

EDIT: Oh yeah...and polygamy too. Forgot that one got tangled in here. :roll:
That's part of separation of powers as well, but the main idea behind a republic is exactly what I explained. And obviously our political system is based on majority rule. The point I was making, though, is that majority rule cannot be used to take certain unalienable rights away from a group of people.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,144
894
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1

You arent getting it. Its not about tying homosexuality and polygamy together. In fact, theyre very different (which you know). The point is about allowing consenting adults the right to marry. The sex and the number of people is irrelevant. Its a matter of the law allowing adults marry who they want. Whats so difficult to understand about that?
I get it. Maybe you are unwilling to understand my point?

The two issues are very different. And part of that difference is that polygamy carries a ton more negative baggage than homosexuality currently does.

And when both are named in the same sentance then there is a transference of that baggage from one to the other.

Also, vice versa. As Eskimo pointed out earlier.

Which is why logically no one should be intermingling the two issues. Because if Gay marriage had all the negative associations and baggage that plural marriage currently does then gay marriage goes NO WHERE because people won't support it.

But I know that that is the intent of SOME anti-gay people out there. And that is not a valid argument against gay marriage. That is only a red herring.

Also, there are current cases and legal proceedings out there wrt gay marriage. No one has taken up the cause for plural marriage...yet.

At least there has been no national movement that I can think of.
Oh I disagree. Each has its own negative baggage. For example, gay men are much more promiscuous therefore a greater threat to teh aids and hepatitis...to name one....

But the public's (mis)perception about both isnt the issue. The law is.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,144
894
126
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: reallyscrued
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yeah, I don't know why this is so hard for them to understand. Our political system (constitutional republic) is specifically designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Legislative bodies can pass anything they want; it's not their job to determine constitutionality, that's up to the courts. And unsurprisingly, legislature passes a lot of unconstitutional laws, which the court then throws out. The fact that you guys find something wrong with this system honestly scares the crap out of me. Do you propose we just scrap the Bill of Rights? It seems like what you guys want is pure democracy where the majority can simply walk all over everyone else. Fortunately the founders of our country had a lot more sense and built safeguards into the political system to prevent these abuses.
No it isn't. It was designed to protect the majority from oppression by a single leader.

And the fact that you think its scary there's issues in the United States' legal foundation scares the hell out of me. Nothing is perfect, get it through your thick skull. You're probably one of those people that think because something is branded "American" it is constitutionally in line. Did we forget the founding fathers also let us amend the constitution? It is a living document.

And I don't know if you've actually looked out into the world lately, but guess what? The majority does walk over everyone else... Democracy is the idea that more than half the people are right more than half the time. And that's what's in place.

I'm for gay marriage. I'm for inter-racial marriage. Inter-species, inter-galactic, I don't give a shit. The government needs to stay out of people's personal lives to begin with, but like someone said before, that's never gonna happen.

EDIT: Oh yeah...and polygamy too. Forgot that one got tangled in here. :roll:
That's part of separation of powers as well, but the main idea behind a republic is exactly what I explained. And obviously our political system is based on majority rule. The point I was making, though, is that majority rule cannot be used to take certain unalienable rights away from a group of people.
100% false. Thats where your point gets derailed.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,710
25,806
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: frostedflakes

That's part of separation of powers as well, but the main idea behind a republic is exactly what I explained. And obviously our political system is based on majority rule. The point I was making, though, is that majority rule cannot be used to take certain unalienable rights away from a group of people.
100% false. Thats where your point gets derailed.
That's not really false at all, our system is based around majority rule. Sure it has numerous exceptions to this, but the foundation is definitely majority rule.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Oh I disagree. Each has its own negative baggage. For example, gay men are much more promiscuous therefore a greater threat to teh aids and hepatitis...to name one....

But the public's (mis)perception about both isnt the issue. The law is.
I didnt say homosexuality is without its own negative baggage.

The law is the issue, but law is being challenged due to changes in social climate. Social change comes about via changes in social perception or misperception as stated. The stigmas associated with homosexuality are not as prominent nor widespread as those associated with plural marriage. The stigmas associated with plural marriage are not as prominent nor widespread as those stigmas associated with beastiality....etc etc.

Misperception is achieved when individuals conflate the issues...sort of like what is being done here with homosexuality and polygamy.



 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,264
697
126
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
You can't legislate something that denies a group of people with rights that others enjoy. It's not legal and I fully support the court's right to overturn these stupid laws.
 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0


this issue is just so charged on both sides. youll always going to have those that attack people with a moral objection to it and youll always have those that irrationally lash out at those that are for it.


the big problem is that becuase the government is going to define things that a couple gets access to, then they also have to define what a couple is to avoid misuse as much as possible. Defining a couple is what has everyone so devided. Not only the genders of a couple but wether it should be limited to one person, two, three?

i just dont see how the government can define this. If you really want the government to be 'fair', then what should limit the government? The government will have to become a moral compass in order to define the limits, and that could be very bad. For those that simply hate religion, etc, becuase of their definitions of morality, then how is it any better for the government to take over that role?

Thats the biggest reason for so much opposition. People want to bash those that have a moral objection, but that will never help the cuase your fighting for, it just incites more anger against you. It looks like the only 'fair' answer is for the government to wash its hands of marriage completely, or to open up the legal system around it to a wide range definitons.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: JD50
Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.
There's one fairly significant exception to this overly simplistic explanation. With gay marriage, the language would have to be made gender-neutral; you'd no longer be looking at a husband and a wife, but a spouse and spouse. Other than that, everything could stay identical. When someone died, their surviving spouse would get the inheritance by default. Someone's spouse could have power of attorney if their spouse was hospitalized. This is just a simple change in language.

With polygamy, you'd have to completely restructure the marriage code. For example, let's say a man has 4 wives and he dies. Who gets the inheritance? What if they were all married in a mass ceremony, so there wasn't a longevity angle? What if those wives had additional husbands; could they claim inheritance too? How would alimony work? Child support? These are questions that are complicated enough when there are only two people in a marriage; add more, and the problem compounds. And a simple change in language from two spouses to two or more spouses does not address how these issues would be resolved legally.

For what it's worth, I agree with you about polygamy. I have no problem with polygamous relationships. But the legal aspects of a multipartner marriage are significantly different than changing the current definition of marriage to include gays. So how about we go ahead and legalize gay marriage now and figure out how exactly we'd need to restructure the marriage laws to allow polygamy afterwards?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,144
894
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Oh I disagree. Each has its own negative baggage. For example, gay men are much more promiscuous therefore a greater threat to teh aids and hepatitis...to name one....

But the public's (mis)perception about both isnt the issue. The law is.
I didnt say homosexuality is without its own negative baggage.

The law is the issue, but law is being challenged due to changes in social climate. Social change comes about via changes in social perception or misperception as stated. The stigmas associated with homosexuality are not as prominent nor widespread as those associated with plural marriage. The stigmas associated with plural marriage are not as prominent nor widespread as those stigmas associated with beastiality....etc etc.

Misperception is achieved when individuals conflate the issues...sort of like what is being done here with homosexuality and polygamy.
And to that we agree. We'll just have to agree to disagree on its importance and relevance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY