what goes more against what America is supposed to be about..banning gay marriage or

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
an activist judge totally dismissing the will of the voters?

I for one have no problem with gays getting married, why should they be discriminated against? They shouldn't, what's next..banning interracial marriages?

Which is worse in your opinion?

I wish people who keep yammering about "the will of the voters" would take a damn government or legal class. That's not how our system works, please proceed directly to 8th grade when many of us were learning this fact.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
I wish people who keep yammering about "the will of the voters" would take a damn government or legal class. That's not how our system works, please proceed directly to 8th grade when many of us were learning this fact.

The WILL of the MAJORITY RULES!!!

why is this concept sooo hard to understand?? :p
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,513
16,236
146
Amused: Again, I say the state has no business prohibiting consenting adults entering into contracts. No matter how much YOU claim it's beneficial to the state. The state exists to protect the rights of the individual. Nothing more. No where in the Constitution is social engineering part of any of the three branch's duties.

So the rest of your post is moot. Until you can show evidence that group marriage is any more harmful than two-party marriage to ANYONE in a society that treats all equally under the law, you have nothing. Zip.

M: Let me illustrate why I have problem with the if game:

Suppose all the fertile women in the world wanted to marry me of their own free will. Would the state have any interest in preventing that? By the way, we are also moving to Mars.

Ridiculous extremes are part of the "if" game?

No ifs, Moonie. Individuals should be free to enter into consensual contracts without government interference.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,513
16,236
146
Are you really that stupid?

Consenting adults entering into contracts = Trusts, Corporations, Partnerships, and other legal entities.

You can do whatever the fuck your consenting asses WANT, the STATE does not have to give your asses tax benefits, visitor rights etc just because you want multiple fuck buddies.

Did you also think that driving on our roads is a God-given right? Did you also think that owning a gun is a God-given right? Fuck no, if you're incompetent, you can't drive on public roads, if you're a convict, then you can't own a gun, and if you want to proclaim to have a whole lotta love, you're not getting marriage benefits that are designed to create 1+1 social stability.

Social engineering? Fuck, if Governments are not social engineers, I have do not know what the fuck Fascists, Communists, and yes CAPITALISTS and Democratic Republics are.

Driving on state roads cannot be a right, because the roads are owned by all. Irrelevant.

Felons give up their rights as punishment for violating the rights of others. Irrelevant.

No where in the Constitution is the government tasked with social engineering.

Sorry, but your emotionally based illogical arguments just don't cut it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Ridiculous extremes are part of the "if" game?

No ifs, Moonie. Individuals should be free to enter into consensual contracts without government interference.

So the government should have no say in me taking all the fertile women on Earth to Mars if they wanted to go?

I can't understand a need for consistency that requires one to be completely insane. This is why libertarians make me laugh. I guess if I had most of the money in the world I could buy all the world's food and take it to Mars too.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
As to this whole thread... It’s sad so many people have no idea on how this country operates. Our system has always been setup to allow the courts and judges to interrupt the law of the land. Voters can and often do vote for issues via the ballot, issues that has no legal constitutional basis. In CA for example, anyone that has ever lived there knows on any weekend there are several name takers roaming the parking lots trying to get as many signatures as they can to get this or that on a ballot in some upcoming election.
If they get enough signatures, that issue gets placed on a ballot for a vote. It does not matter the legality of their issue, all the need are the signatures. And then as any A resident well knows, after that issue is passed it is almost immediately challenged in the courts. And in most cases the issue never actually becomes law. Same sex marriage is the same thing. ANyone can get this issue on a ballot, but is it hold up constitutionally? So far, the answer is a solid no. The US supreme court will grant same sex marriage nationwide, when they get the case. Regardless that the current US supreme court has a conservative right tilt, just be aware and prepared for a unanimous or very close to unanimous decision supporting same sex marriage. ANd the reason this is and has been happening, state by state in the courts, is not because some judge is trying to twist the law, but because this issue has never went to the courts in the past. This is new. But as with civil rights issues, same sex marriage also easily meet the constitutional muster.
It's just people, way too many people, have no idea how this country was setup and how law making works. The people DO NOT make law by ballot vote. It has never been that way. Yes they vote for presidents and office holders, but that is different than voting for protected rights or against protected rights. This is how the US of A was setup from the start. Nothing has changed or is going to change how the system works. Period.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Oh so every decision made by politicians is right? The decisions always represent the people?

An absolute like "every decision is right" is not possible, nor is it possible for the decisions to always represent the people's wishes. Why? Because the people's wishes are not always right or constitutional.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Oh Em Eff Gee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

You wanted historical proof of Polygamy and its hand-in-hand relation to gender inequality.

Google could have saved you (and me) 0.5 seconds of the time it took for me to pull that up and 20 seconds for me write this.

Ok, I read it, and I can't find anything in there about how polygamy causes inherent harm. I see that a lot of women in SE asia were forced into polygamous marriages they don't want, but I was fairly certain a lot of women in SE asia are forced into monogamous marriages they don't want. So, should we ban straight, heterosexual marriages because it has the same problems?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
X-2 different
Yes, the number of people is different. How does that change the "consenting adults" argument though?

Two loving parents are better than none. Three loving parents are better than none; and so on. I just don't see how any of the gay marriage arguments exclude polygamy.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Did you see what I posted from the Appeals court in NY. Here is the part I want to focus on,

I find that important if not crucial. People keep trying to associate gay marriage with all these things. Rather than judging it solely by itself. They claim its because of religion or someone is bigoted, when the truth is gay marriage is something new. Its not about civil rights or constitutional law, its simply about what society deems as appropriate. And we have adopted a set of core principles that we have said is appropriate and others we have as a nation has said is not appropriate.

While marriage may be a fundamental right, it is still governed through certain criteria outlined in state law. Not one gay person has been denied the right to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. 6 billion people have been born on this planet because of people of opposite sex coming together in way or another. This is not a majority argument, this is about people wrestling with the essence of their literal existence.
I don't disagree with anything in that quote. I do not disagree that gay marriage is something new, I don't think that 6 billion people were irrational, ignorant or bigoted, nor do I think that a majority (of any state) support it. And I generally support the majority's right to define what is appropriate for society. I simply disagree that the majority should have the right to define for a minority permissible private behaviors or contracts, or to establish rights in such as way as to be technically equal but functionally inequitable. My view on freedom is pretty simple: If a behavior does not materially harm others, or can be shown to be likely to materially harm others, then it should not be prohibited. I don't think that allowing gays to marry materially harms anyone else. It's true that gay marriage will take money out of public and corporate coffers, but that's true of many other behaviors as well, such as having children and thereby reducing your tax load (and sometimes increasing government bennies taken from someone else.) That ship sailed so long ago that we only vaguely recall what it looked like, so I can't regard potentially adding more souls to the list as materially harming any of us. Especially since anything that can be said of gay marriage regarding taxes or benefits must first be said about straight marriage.


Categorically false.

Gay couples will exist and will have their own families. They are not different than the existing failing marriage structure of divorce and separation.

The State has NO reason to deny marriage to Gays as it serves the same purpose as straight marriages, while it has VERY compelling and serious reasons for denying polygamy, as not only does it fundamentally make a mockery of love (dilution), equality (in practice, it will be 99% Male + 5 women), and completely undermines the whole purpose of marriage - studies for child abuse aside (which is also inherent as a child gets a % less attention from the father, depending on total number of people in family).

SNIP
The majority of Americans would disagree with you that gay marriage is not fundamentally different from regular marriage. For instance, there is not a father and a mother - proponents claiming that gay marriage is exactly equal to regular marriage must also make the argument that sex is irrelevant, something most adults do not accept and will probably never accept even after gay marriage becomes legal. Very few people would disagree that a mother and a father are the parental ideal. The question should be do we have the moral authority to enforce that standard on those who, whether by design or by circumstance, do not fit. Or more properly, do we have the moral authority to enforce that legal fiction by denying legal recognition, as gay couples will continue to exist regardless.

Kind of bizarre that you would cite a child getting less attention from a father as justification for society not recognizing polygamous marriage whilst demanding that society accept marriages with NO father. Can you honestly not see the complete logic fail in that? If sex is irrelevant and parents are interchangeable, then more parents must logically be better. If sex is not irrelevant and parents are not interchangeable, then society has a compelling reason to continue banning gay marriage. You can't have it both ways. You're also completely missing that society and the State do not need a compelling reason to NOT change thousands of years of human society. Rather, society and the State need a compelling reason to change thousands of years of human society. I find that compelling reason in freedom, but I certainly wouldn't accept your argument that gay marriage is no different from regular marriage. Clearly gay marriage is a major change in society; the only proper argument is whether or not that change should be made.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Are you really that stupid?
You can do whatever the fuck your consenting asses WANT, the STATE does not have to give your asses tax benefits, visitor rights etc just because you want multiple fuck buddies.

Do you honestly believe that the ability to visit a sick relative/friend/spouse is a right given to you by the state? And I am still waiting to see evidence of harm inherent to polygamy, the wikipedia page provided nothing. You keep alluding to proven inherent harm, but never the actual proof. If you have, present it.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You can do whatever the fuck your consenting asses WANT, the STATE does not have to give your asses tax benefits, visitor rights etc just because you want multiple fuck buddies.

You can do whatever the fuck your consenting asses WANT, the STATE does not have to give your asses tax benefits, visitor rights etc just because you want same sex fuck buddies.

See what I did there?

Did you also think that driving on our roads is a God-given right?
Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Did you also think that owning a gun is a God-given right?
Yip, it is a Constitutionally protected right, the right to defend you life. I firearm is just a tool for defense, and inanimate object, like a car, which by the way, you can own and still not have the privilege of driving.


Fuck no, if you're incompetent, you can't drive on public roads, if you're a convict, then you can't own a gun,
This two are not even close to the same thing. But it's funny watching you call people incompetent and than use those examples.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Do you honestly believe that the ability to visit a sick relative/friend/spouse is a right given to you by the state? And I am still waiting to see evidence of harm inherent to polygamy, the wikipedia page provided nothing. You keep alluding to proven inherent harm, but never the actual proof. If you have, present it.

LOL, no you do not have the right to do shit in a hospital unless you're a spouse. :awe:
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,513
16,236
146
So the government should have no say in me taking all the fertile women on Earth to Mars if they wanted to go?

I can't understand a need for consistency that requires one to be completely insane. This is why libertarians make me laugh. I guess if I had most of the money in the world I could buy all the world's food and take it to Mars too.

Moonie, if you can get all the women to consent AND "get your ass to mars" more power to ya!

And, BTW, there is no law stopping you from doing just that. Not a single one. There is no law againt space flight OR leaving the country (you may have to leave behind the women who are in prison and/or under charges at the time).
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Do you honestly believe that the ability to visit a sick relative/friend/spouse is a right given to you by the state? And I am still waiting to see evidence of harm inherent to polygamy, the wikipedia page provided nothing. You keep alluding to proven inherent harm, but never the actual proof. If you have, present it.

A gay man who is unconscious or otherwise unable to communicate can have his partner banned from visitation by his parents, doesn't seem to be much of a problem with lesbians. In most places gay marriage and/or partnership is not a recognized relationship, so legally you have no rights in this situation. This can be fixed by other means, of course, such as living wills and power of attorney, but it happens often enough to make the news and not often enough to not make the news, if you follow.

Moonie, if you can get all the women to consent AND "get your ass to mars" more power to ya!

And, BTW, there is no law stopping you from doing just that. Not a single one. There is no law against space flight OR leaving the country (you may have to leave behind the women who are in prison and/or under charges at the time).

And of course the really fat chicks.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
The majority of Americans would disagree with you that gay marriage is not fundamentally different from regular marriage. For instance, there is not a father and a mother - proponents claiming that gay marriage is exactly equal to regular marriage must also make the argument that sex is irrelevant, something most adults do not accept and will probably never accept even after gay marriage becomes legal.

Exactly the same? No, but fundamentally the same - yes.

Gender relevancy? Careful there, you better not stop on the toes of equality when you're trying to claim something there.

Sex is relevant for sexual relations, having babies, and body parts - indeed.

Very few people would disagree that a mother and a father are the parental ideal.
The parental argument is not even in a question here. Gay couples are allowed to adopt children, or have children. There is no question there. Whether they are married or not is irrelevant to child bearing.

I mean, really? Is this really the intellectual level of ATOT?


The question should be do we have the moral authority to enforce that standard on those who, whether by design or by circumstance, do not fit. Or more properly, do we have the moral authority to enforce that legal fiction by denying legal recognition, as gay couples will continue to exist regardless.
No, that's not the question at all. Nor was children ever a legitimate question in the Gay Marriage debate.

Kind of bizarre that you would cite a child getting less attention from a father as justification for society not recognizing polygamous marriage whilst demanding that society accept marriages with NO father. Can you honestly not see the complete logic fail in that?
I can absolutely see the logic fail in YOU that you, naturally, presumed that the sex of the Father was the operative descriptor here. :rolleyes:

Here it is for your puny mind:

1 Father
10 Mothers
10 Children

Instead of 2 parents per child, you have 1.1 parents. This gets worse when the mothers have more than 1 child (and obviously, applies to 2 parent families with lots of children as well), but you can clearly see how the problem gets compounded.


If sex is irrelevant and parents are interchangeable, then more parents must logically be better. If sex is not irrelevant and parents are not interchangeable, then society has a compelling reason to continue banning gay marriage. You can't have it both ways.
Correct. And Wrong. Because of the above. And your own ignorance. And stupidity. :awe:

You're also completely missing that society and the State do not need a compelling reason to NOT change thousands of years of human society. Rather, society and the State need a compelling reason to change thousands of years of human society.
What's going on here? Are we forcing people to have gay sex?

Gays just want Equal Protection (a compelling reason) to get married. It does not affect anyone else.

Or do you also think that letting Blacks have rights have also affected Whites?

I suppose it has. Whites can't have slaves anymore. Justice really sucks sometimes.


I find that compelling reason in freedom, but I certainly wouldn't accept your argument that gay marriage is no different from regular marriage. Clearly gay marriage is a major change in society; the only proper argument is whether or not that change should be made.
OH MY GOD, Massachusetts is like a majorly totally changed society. In the past 7 years, we've become a totally different SOCIETY!! LIKE OH EM GEE!!!!!

No one is saying Gay Marriage is not different than regular marriage. Is interracial marriage different than regular marriage? Marriage between an 18 year old and 80 year old? How about marriage between long distant cousins?

Yea, they're all different than "regular marriage", but fundamentally, they subscribe to the same goals and ideals of marriage, which is what makes them fundamentally the same.
 
Last edited:

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Exactly the same? No, but fundamentally the same - yes.

Gender relevancy? Careful there, you better not stop on the toes of equality when you're trying to claim something there.

Sex is relevant for sexual relations, having babies, and body parts - indeed.

The parental argument is not even in a question here. Gay couples are allowed to adopt children, or have children. There is no question there. Whether they are married or not is irrelevant to child bearing.

I mean, really? Is this really the intellectual level of ATOT?


No, that's not the question at all. Nor was children ever a legitimate question in the Gay Marriage debate.

I can absolutely see the logic fail in YOU that you, naturally, presumed that the sex of the Father was the operative descriptor here. :rolleyes:

Here it is for your puny mind:

1 Father
10 Mothers
10 Children

Instead of 2 parents per child, you have 1.1 parents. This gets worse when the mothers have more than 1 child (and obviously, applies to 2 parent families with lots of children as well), but you can clearly see how the problem gets compounded.


Correct. And Wrong. Because of the above. And your own ignorance. And stupidity. :awe:

What's going on here? Are we forcing people to have gay sex?

Gays just want Equal Protection (a compelling reason) to get married. It does not affect anyone else.

Or do you also think that letting Blacks have rights have also affected Whites?

I suppose it has. Whites can't have slaves anymore. Justice really sucks sometimes.


OH MY GOD, Massachusetts is like a majorly totally changed society. In the past 7 years, we've become a totally different SOCIETY!! LIKE OH EM GEE!!!!!

No one is saying Gay Marriage is not different than regular marriage. Is interracial marriage different than regular marriage? Marriage between an 18 year old and 80 year old? How about marriage between long distant cousins?

Yea, they're all different than "regular marriage", but fundamentally, they subscribe to the same goals and ideals of marriage, which is what makes them fundamentally the same.

There is no difference between polygamy and same sex marriage. They both buck the fundamental norm of one man marrying one woman. That is the fundamental norm. You point out the little 1.1 parents in error. Because in gay marriages its always just 1 parent. Children need male and female examples for many reasons. There is no better foundation than for that child to learn those examples at home, from both of that child's biological parents. In same sex marriage there is always just 1 parent.

No gay man should be going in the bathroom with a 12 year old girl showing her how to prepare her tampon or how to shave her private areas. I don't care how much he loves her. The fundamental idea of a family with a husband and wife is the ultimate ideal. Just because our society is broken doesn't mean that the norm is flawed and is inferior to some alternative or the alternative is some how just as good. The fundamental model is not flawed, its society that is flawed. Just because the baby was dirty and now the bath water is dirty, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Nothing wrong with the baby.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Moonie, if you can get all the women to consent AND "get your ass to mars" more power to ya!

And, BTW, there is no law stopping you from doing just that. Not a single one. There is no law againt space flight OR leaving the country (you may have to leave behind the women who are in prison and/or under charges at the time).

My dear Amused, the Supreme Court, anticipating my coming many decades before my birth, has already robbed me of my dream. They outlawed polygamous marriage. And had they not you and your male friends would stop me one way or another before I could get ten of their fat girlfriends off the ground.

In the name of constistent logic you make logic ridiculous. It's the libertarian way.
 
Last edited:

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
There is no difference between polygamy and same sex marriage. They both buck the fundamental norm of one man marrying one woman. That is the fundamental norm. You point out the little 1.1 parents in error. Because in gay marriages its always just 1 parent. Children need male and female examples for many reasons. There is no better foundation than for that child to learn those examples at home, from both of that child's biological parents. In same sex marriage there is always just 1 parent.

No gay man should be going in the bathroom with a 12 year old girl showing her how to prepare her tampon or how to shave her private areas. I don't care how much he loves her. The fundamental idea of a family with a husband and wife is the ultimate ideal. Just because our society is broken doesn't mean that the norm is flawed and is inferior to some alternative or the alternative is some how just as good. The fundamental model is not flawed, its society that is flawed. Just because the baby was dirty and now the bath water is dirty, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Nothing wrong with the baby.

Well, I don't know. Flaws like you is probably better to throw out then continue to dirty the water.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Just say ownt, its easier.

Ownt? You're the last person to own anyone except perhaps yourself.

Every single time you open your mouth.

By the way, being Black is the same as being Gay and a Polygamist.

Let's see you try to argue against that! :awe:
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
LOL, no you do not have the right to do shit in a hospital unless you're a spouse. :awe:

This would be a fun sidetrack to argue, but I want to stick to one part of the argument until you either prove it or abandon it. Do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes) that polygamy is inherently harmful?

And, if you want to go to the 1.1 parents per children, do you support a law that prevents more than 2 children per family, I have 3 siblings, my married parents only had .5 parent per child. Some families have 10 children, 0.1 parent per child. What would prevent a polygamist family from having only 1 child and having 5 parents per child? For a long time, a large number of children was regular in this country, I don't think you can find any support to prove that a parent to child ratio is a good indicator of family strength.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
This would be a fun sidetrack to argue, but I want to stick to one part of the argument until you either prove it or abandon it. Do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes) that polygamy is inherently harmful?

And, if you want to go to the 1.1 parents per children, do you support a law that prevents more than 2 children per family, I have 3 siblings, my married parents only had .5 parent per child. Some families have 10 children, 0.1 parent per child. What would prevent a polygamist family from having only 1 child and having 5 parents per child? For a long time, a large number of children was regular in this country, I don't think you can find any support to prove that a parent to child ratio is a good indicator of family strength.

Are you stupid?

Parent to child ratio is the most basic indicator of a strong family.

Let's see 0 parents - Worst
Divorced Single Parent or dead parent - Pretty bad
2 Parents - Good

I have a feeling at this point that since basic and common knowledge and reason is completely absent amongst this thread, this is becoming increasingly more futile than lecturing 5 year old children or 15 year old retards.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Are you stupid?

Parent to child ratio is the most basic indicator of a strong family.

Let's see 0 parents - Worst
Divorced Single Parent or dead parent - Pretty bad
2 Parents - Good

I have a feeling at this point that since basic and common knowledge and reason is completely absent amongst this thread, this is becoming increasingly more futile than lecturing 5 year old children or 15 year old retards.

0 - worst, 1 - bad, 2 - good, 3 - horrible

That is your argument?

And by the way, you stopped using ratios and switched to totals, so if your going to accuse me of being stupid because I don't understand ratios, make sure you are actually discussing ratios. Ratio would be .5 parents to each child ( my family) compared to 1.1 parent to child, the hypothetical 10 children, 10 mothers, 1 father family. Which would put your hypothetical polygamist family much closer to your preferred ratios than my family was at.

You have also failed to present any science at all supporting your position. There are peer-reviewed journals why don't you go look through them. If you want to claim we don't understand science, find me some actual science to support your argument, because I don't know of any actual studies done on this.