Polyamory and Marriage

[Pulsar]

It has already been established that gay/polyamory couples are not equal to hetero couples.

Please explain. Where / how has this been established, and in what way are they not equal?

Perhaps it's the wording I don't understand. The whole point of this thread is that they should be equally treated in the eyes of the law.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I've seen nothing so far that indicates why gays/polyamory unions cannot be full rights legal unions with the Gov only recognizing such for any joined couple/multiple person partnership.

Because we remember history. Separate but equal didn't work.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, we wouldn't be doing that. I would refer to a hetero married couple as married. I would refer to say a gay couple as joined or unioned. The only equal to a hetero marriage is a hetero marriage. This isn't about equality in terms, it's about equality of rights. Gays could have legal unions with full rights probably a decade or more ago, but they keep keeping on with this rediculous notion that they are equal to a hetero couple and thus can also be "married'. They are not equal, are not seen as equal (except by gays and those they've successfully perverted on the issue), and will not be seen as equal, and thus the pushback.

Chuck

But you don't even want separate but equal. You want separate and unequal. You sir, are a bigot. And I have no need to argue with your hate any further.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I've read all your posts here. Is this all you got? You're concerned about the definition of a word changing over time from what was traditional, and using the pejorative "perversion" to describe any deviation from traditional norms? Your logic extends to protecting anything considered traditional, regardless of its merit.

And it's even worse than that, because much of what really constitutes "traditional" marriage would be considered abhorrent to him. Old men bedding girls within months of menarche, polygamy, concubines, raping slaves, on and on it goes. He actually wants to hand-select a specific period of time and declare that as some sort of sacrosanct "ideal" marriage definition, and completely ignore all of the evolution of the institution that occurred both before and after it.

That said, he is entitled to his opinion, so let's try to restrain ourselves from the overt name-calling. (Speaking generally here, not to woolfe.) However, I also have to say, chucky2, that all I see you saying over and over again is the equivalent of "gay marriage isn't marriage because marriage can't be between gays". That's not an argument, it's just circular complaining. Believe that if you wish, but there's really nothing to discuss when you simply define yourself to be right and ignore everything everyone else says.

 

[Retro Rob]

My opinion is that we (gay and striaght people) are indeed equal from a human standpoint. We should all have the same rights, opportunities, etc. We cannot live in a world rife with this sort of prejudice when a person can get fired from a job because he's gay regardless of his qualifications.

On the other hand, our relationships simply aren't equal...gay marriages v straight marriages. You can change the word all you want..change the meaning, but it doesn't alter pure facts.

Its my opinion, and yours to see otherwise, that since homosexuals can't bear children on their own which is a necessary function of human survival, how can their relationships be equal?

On the surface, hetero relationships do add more value to society -- they provide future scientists, engineers, etc. Gays depend on heterosexuals for adoptions, and other people outside of their own mate (gay or straight) to lend their biological material whether it be through surrogacy or sperm donation, to legally have their own families.

So while we're all equals, our relationships simply cannot be.

 

[randomrogue]

Yes homosexuals will not have children together but they can have them outside of the relationship. Many heterosexual couples will not have children either. The ability, desire, or success of child birth is not a requirement for marriage.

Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe any culture has a separate category for child bearing married couples.

At the end of the day marriage is a union between people.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's not that 'that's all I've got' but more rather that's all you've got. Your sides argument thus far is We want it to, whine whine whine! I've seen nothing so far that indicates why gays/polyamory unions cannot be full rights legal unions with the Gov only recognizing such for any joined couple/multiple person partnership. We just don't willy nilly change the meaning and context of thousands of years/multiple societies understanding of words because one small group and their perverted supporters have a modern mass media to whine loud and wide enough to get their PC hooks into said word because 'they wanna too'.

Do you have another reason for including gay "marriage" besides blind adhereence to "us too because we wanna"? I'm not seeing it...

Because gays have traditionally been discriminated against and they view the state using arbitrarily different terminology as implying that their relationship is of inferior status. They have good reason to view it that way given the history of discrimination. And also, because there is zero point in creating a separate name and legal classification for something which adheres the exact same legal rights.

Those reasons are plenty good enough, since you have offered zero contra reasoning other than "that is how marriage has been defined in the past."

What do you mean by "perverted" in this context? Are you referring to sexual perversion or do you mean it in some other sense?

 

[SMOGZINN]

My opinion is that we (gay and striaght people) are indeed equal from a human standpoint. We should all have the same rights, opportunities, etc. We cannot live in a world rife with this sort of prejudice when a person can get fired from a job because he's gay regardless of his qualifications.

On the other hand, our relationships simply aren't equal...gay marriages v straight marriages. You can change the word all you want..change the meaning, but it doesn't alter pure facts.

Its my opinion, and yours to see otherwise, that since homosexuals can't bear children on their own which is a necessary function of human survival, how can their relationships be equal?

On the surface, hetero relationships do add more value to society -- they provide future scientists, engineers, etc. Gays depend on heterosexuals for adoptions, and other people outside of their own mate (gay or straight) to lend their biological material whether it be through surrogacy or sperm donation, to legally have their own families.

So while we're all equals, our relationships simply cannot be.

Then Poly relationships are even more valuable to society. They can produce significantly more children then mono-hetero-relationships.

It is ONLY on the surface that being able to produce children is important to society. If you look deeper you see that a percentage of non-child-producing couples is probably good for society, and humanity as a whole. Child rearing takes significant resources, time, and energy. It is highly advantageous to humanity to have groups of people that use that time, energy, and resource to other goals. Our society can more then make up for the loss of those few people that are not able to create children since it is rather easy for a couple to have more then two children.

Overall, with something like 7 billion people on the planet, making more of them is not all that important, and due to the number of children one couple can produce, never has been.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes homosexuals will not have children together but they can have them outside of the relationship. Many heterosexual couples will not have children either. The ability, desire, or success of child birth is not a requirement for marriage.

Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe any culture has a separate category for child bearing married couples.

At the end of the day marriage is a union between people.

I didn't say anything about a "separate category" or that childbirth is a requirement. Please read what I type.

First, marriage was between a man and woman, then two consenting adults, now "between people". You'd better specify age with that last one because between "people" doesn't mean anything outside of one being alive.

Should we remove the age of consent if its between "people"?

 

[Phanuel]

I didn't say anything about a "separate category" or that childbirth is a requirement. Please read what I type.

First, marriage was between a man and woman, then two consenting adults, now "between people". You'd better specify age with that last one because between "people" doesn't mean anything outside of one being alive.

Should we remove the age of consent if its between "people"?

Marriage in most states is still stuck at the "Between a man and a woman" stage. We were recently stuck in "Between a man and a woman of the same race" not long before that. When we hit "Between two consenting adults" we'll be at a place where homosexual couples no longer feel their rights are being trampled on.

Want to fit polygamy into that? The definition becomes "Between any number of consenting adults." You don't need to result to hyperbole and call them "people" you just need to not specify the number of people to be involved. I'm not sure the insurance companies will approve of more than one spouse though, that gets expensive for them.

 

[Retro Rob]

Marriage in most states is still stuck at the "Between a man and a woman" stage. We were recently stuck in "Between a man and a woman of the same race" not long before that. When we hit "Between two consenting adults" we'll be at a place where homosexual couples no longer feel their rights are being trampled on.

Want to fit polygamy into that? The definition becomes "Between any number of consenting adults." You don't need to result to hyperbole and call them "people" you just need to not specify the number of people to be involved. I'm not sure the insurance companies will approve of more than one spouse though, that gets expensive for them.

What troubles me about today's world is that now we have to define marriage in vague, ambiguous terms to be inclusionary because somewhere along the lines, having standards has been blurred with being exclusionary.

LOL

 

[Pulsar]

I didn't say anything about a "separate category" or that childbirth is a requirement. Please read what I type.

First, marriage was between a man and woman, then two consenting adults, now "between people". You'd better specify age with that last one because between "people" doesn't mean anything outside of one being alive.

Should we remove the age of consent if its between "people"?

There are already laws restricting the age of marriage. I posted a link to them above. Please don't go off on another tangent.

I have no interest in attempting to place relative values on relationships between gays, heteros, polyamorous, or other. I'm not sure why you would. I don't think anyone would ever support a law that attempts to place value on human relationships either. The current laws on the books certainly have nothing to do with relationship values. That argument is a complete non-sequitor.

Consenting adults who want to be in a recognized relationship want equality in the eyes of the law. That's it. So far I haven't seen a single reason to rationally suggest that they don't deserve it.

 

[Pulsar]

What troubles me about today's world is that now we have to define marriage in vague, ambiguous terms to be inclusionary because somewhere along the lines, having standards has been blurred with being exclusionary.

LOL

Please define what you consider 'standards'. Are you suggesting that marriage carries a standard of being a hetero couple, but agreeing that that a civil union conferring the same legal status upon non-hetero couples is not a problem?

Or are you suggesting that their relationships are not up to the 'standard' of hetero ones, and therefore are subpar and should not have the same legal rights conferred?

 

[Pulsar]

Yes homosexuals will not have children together but they can have them outside of the relationship. Many heterosexual couples will not have children either. The ability, desire, or success of child birth is not a requirement for marriage.

Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe any culture has a separate category for child bearing married couples.

At the end of the day marriage is a union between people.

And score another point for non-child-bearing couples: we have a host of foster children in this world that need a loving couple to raise them.

 

[Retro Rob]

There are already laws restricting the age of marriage. I posted a link to them above. Please don't go off on another tangent.

I have no interest in attempting to place relative values on relationships between gays, heteros, polyamorous, or other. I'm not sure why you would. I don't think anyone would ever support a law that attempts to place value on human relationships either. The current laws on the books certainly have nothing to do with relationship values. That argument is a complete non-sequitor.

Consenting adults who want to be in a recognized relationship want equality in the eyes of the law. That's it. So far I haven't seen a single reason to rationally suggest that they don't deserve it.

Randomrougue actually said it's between "people" with no definition. Me thinks he's too scared to define it out of fear of being "exclusionary".

I think this is a stupid stance, really, because defining something can indeed exclude people, however, not defining it opens the door for anything to happen. Neither extreme (strictly defining something or not defining it at all) can be helpful long-term. People love circumventing things and attacking loopholes. We see that with the rich and the tax code -- no reason to think it can't/won't happen with marriage.

 

[soulcougher73]

What troubles me about today's world is that now we have to define marriage in vague, ambiguous terms to be inclusionary because somewhere along the lines, having standards has been blurred with being exclusionary.

LOL

One mans "Exclusionary", is another mans "discrimination"?

 

[Retro Rob]

One mans "Exclusionary", is another mans "discrimination"?

Yep, and if that's a relative term, then I can't be "wrong" for being exclusionary, can I?

 

[Pulsar]

Yep, and if that's a relative term, then I can't be "wrong" for being exclusionary, can I?

I see you ignored my question about your use of the word standards. Care to address it?

 

[smackababy]

Oh look a thread created to avoid the gay marriage back and forth that existed in another thread has devolved to a gay marriage back and forth with people arguing over semantics AGAIN. =(

 

[Pulsar]

Randomrougue actually said it's between "people" with no definition. Me thinks he's too scared to define it out of fear of being "exclusionary".

I think this is a stupid stance, really, because defining something can indeed exclude people, however, not defining it opens the door for anything to happen. Neither extreme (strictly defining something or not defining it at all) can be helpful long-term. People love circumventing things and attacking loopholes. We see that with the rich and the tax code -- no reason to think it can't/won't happen with marriage.

What do you not understand about the word 'people'? Please clarify the abuses that YOU are suggesting could take place by changing the wording to 'people'.

Age appropriateness is already handled by a law. In fact, all that marriage requirements are handled by different laws. The only 'law' that would end up being changed is the one below:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

In fact, it doesn't say 'consenting'. It doesn't say 'can't be brothers and sisters'. That's all elsewhere.

So, once again, what's going to happen when we change it to 'people'?

 

[Pulsar]

Oh look a thread created to avoid the gay marriage back and forth that existed in another thread has devolved to a gay marriage back and forth with people arguing over semantics AGAIN. =(

It's much easier to hide behind a wall of semantics than it is to argue the issue.

 

[Retro Rob]

Please define what you consider 'standards'. Are you suggesting that marriage carries a standard of being a hetero couple, but agreeing that that a civil union conferring the same legal status upon non-hetero couples is not a problem?

Or are you suggesting that their relationships are not up to the 'standard' of hetero ones, and therefore are subpar and should not have the same legal rights conferred?

My standards have nothing to do with procreation, but I personally think it should only be between a man and a woman (unrelated, consenting age). Of course, these are my personal views which I wouldn't make legal. I don't believe in forcing my personal views on people.

What I mean by standards is simply meeting certain requirements. I mean, we all have standards -- most of us wouldn't marry a person of the same-sex, so are we exclusionary, or discriminatory, or... dare I say "bigoted"?

I say that to say this: I think we benefit long-term from having clear lines and definitions in our lives... and learning to say "NO" is an integral part of structure and growth.

I personally think we've become just tolerant of almost anything in the name of freedom and when people can no longer do what the heck they want, you get law-breaking, and "ricin" letters being sent to our president for even threatening to curtail gun laws, for instance.

 

[SMOGZINN]

What I mean by standards is simply meeting certain requirements. I mean, we all have standards -- most of us wouldn't marry a person of the same-sex, so are we exclusionary, or discriminatory, or... dare I say "bigoted"?

No, it is not bigoted to say that I would not personally be married to someone of the same sex. It is bigotry when you said I don't want YOU married to someone of the same sex. There is a major difference between those two statements.

I say that to say this: I think we benefit long-term from having clear lines and definitions in our lives... and learning to say "NO" is an integral part of structure and growth.

For your personal life you can have all the lines and definitions you want. No one wants to force you to marry a man. But when you start to apply your personal standards to everyone else we have a problem.
Should we force everyone to be a vegan? I know some people with really strong standards about meat that would LOVE to force them on you. Who gets to set the standards?

I personally think we've become just tolerant of almost anything in the name of freedom and when people can no longer do what the heck they want, you get law-breaking, and "ricin" letters being sent to our president for even threatening to curtail gun laws, for instance.

Now you are trying to subtly correlate the issue with violence, but the SSM movement has been very peaceful, unlike it's opposition.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, it is not bigoted to say that I would not personally be married to someone of the same sex. It is bigotry when you said I don't want YOU married to someone of the same sex. There is a major difference between those two statements.

Our personal preference are not truly personal. See post below.

For your personal life you can have all the lines and definitions you want. No one wants to force you to marry a man. But when you start to apply your personal standards to everyone else we have a problem.
Should we force everyone to be a vegan? I know some people with really strong standards about meat that would LOVE to force them on you. Who gets to set the standards?

A part of our personal preferences are always going to be enshrined in law one way or another. This is unavoidable. You just need to admit that there are things you don't agree with in that are in law. In fact, your personal preference is that gays be allowed to marry... so you're forcing your views into law.

Like I said, it's unavoidable whether in the name of "freedom" or not.

Now you are trying to subtly correlate the issue with violence, but the SSM movement has been very peaceful, unlike it's opposition.

I think my point was that if people's freedom becomes threatened, we don't know how'd they react.

Even I, knowing how strongly people feel about gun laws, didn't expect someone to attempt to poising the President.

 

[SMOGZINN]

A part of our personal preferences are always going to be enshrined in law one way or another. This is unavoidable. You just need to admit that there are things you don't agree with in that are in law. In fact, your personal preference is that gays be allowed to marry... so you're forcing your views into law.

Like I said, it's unavoidable whether in the name of "freedom" or not.

To some extent, yes. But we should be trying to minimize that aspect of our law. Trying to make it as inclusive as possible, while still maintaining reasonable rules that protect us from harm. I can see no way that extending the laws concerning marriage to include more situations could cause harm.
This is the argument for gay (and poly) marriages in a nutshell. If extending the rights to a group of people causes no harm, then the concept of liberty demands that we do so.

I think my point was that if people's freedom becomes threatened, we don't know how'd they react.

Even I, knowing how strongly people feel about gun laws, didn't expect someone to attempt to poising the President.

But these peoples rights are already being denied and we see how they react, with peaceful demonstration and legal challenges inside the system, but almost no violence (although violence is offered against them plenty). So, what are you really saying?