Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 123
I am so glad to see people are all concerned about marriage. Of course their reasoning is displaced. Gays and lesbians are not any threat to the "institution" of marriage.

Seems to me if marriage was such a precious commodity, heterosexuals would have dome more to protect it. High divorce rates, spousal abuse, affairs and neglect, all seem like greater threats to marriage.

I am still waiting for the logical reason as to how my committed and legal relationship with another man is a threat to marriage. Well there isn't one, so the radical right comes up with hysterical reasoning.

For years the knock on gay people was about how promiscusous we are. Entering into legal and committed relationships sure damages that PR the fundie right has been passing off for years. So does the fact more and more gays and lesbians are starting families. The idea of nice married gay people must have these biggoted jerks shaking with fear.

All we ask are the same rights in our relationships heterosexuals have in theirs. Some call that special treatment. I call it fairness. Personally I don't care if the marriage is blessed by a church or not. While it would be nice, I don't expect much there. I am talking about a civil marriage between two people. Not a civil union...that smacks of separate, but equal. I am talking about marriage.

The fact is the only true threat to marriage are the ones insecure heterosexuals make up in their minds, and unfortunately pass off as "truth."

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
..... and how many instances of child abuse have you heard resulting from a gay/lesbian couple???? not too darn many .... cause if there WERE, we'd be SURE to hear about it ....

Diane
- anyone but Bush in '04
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
In yesterday's tirade, I heard Bush refer to marraiage as a "sacrament". While I believe that it is much more than that, if he wants to believe that, fine.

But if it is indeed a sacrament, then the government should have nothing whatsoever to do with it.


I don't understand why people can't recognize that the ruling was in regards to civil marriages only; churches are still free to be as bigoted as ever. It's only the government that's not.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Seems to me if marriage was such a precious commodity, heterosexuals would have dome more to protect it. High divorce rates, spousal abuse, affairs and neglect, all seem like greater threats to marriage.


Overall, I agree strongly with the tone and content of your post. However, I feel the above statement misrepresents the history of divorce laws in the US. From what I can tell, it was not an easy shift towards easier divorce. It was fought against with vigor from the religious right, among others. We we hear the religious right talk about the culture wars they were initially talking about the increasing ease of divorce in the middle to late part of the 20th century as the prime indicator.

They tried to 'protect' marriage against divorce, but failed. They don't want to fail further,and would like to recover what they've lost.

With that said, the whole institution continues to need revision to better reflect the real relationships among people. The Massachusetts ruling is one of many steps needed in that direction and I applaud it.

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

But if it is indeed a sacrament, then the government should have nothing whatsoever to do with it.


I don't understand why people can't recognize that the ruling was in regards to civil marriages only; churches are still free to be as bigoted
as ever. It's only the government that's not.


because the 'people' against it are bigoted idiots?

who are Very against 'separation of church and state'?

and the president isn't even bright enough to not parrot these folkers?


-b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Charlie,

I've only been lucky enough to attend one commitment ceremony to go with several weddings. It was the most beautiful ceremony and best reception of any I've attended.

But all throughout it I kept on wondering about legal rights. The same legal rights DW and I bestowed in each other by voicing "I do" can not currently be achieved.

Whenever I get into this argument with someone, I point out to the unfairness of this scenario: By being married, I am able to have DW covered on my health insurance at work, and my (small) portion of this coverage is paid for with pre-tax funds. My company allows gay couples(and unmarried heteros for that matter) to add a dependent for medical coverage. However, by federal law, the portion that the company pays towards the partner's medical benefits is considered taxable income.

This is only one of the legal benefits of marriage - it decreases your tax burden in ways that "the marriage penalty" does not address. All of this without getting into a discussion on visitation rights, wills, etc.

Beast
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I am so glad to see people are all concerned about marriage. Of course their reasoning is displaced. Gays and lesbians are not any threat to the "institution" of marriage.

We heteros all know that marriage is GREAT which is why we want it all for ourselves.

In fact, it is such a sacred blessing that most of us get married again and again during our lives.

Harrumph. Sanctity of marriage my foot.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Beast,

This morning I watched a discussion of this on the Today Show. One couple who pursued this in the courts were a lesbian couple, who, one of the women was NOT allowed in the delivery room during the birth of their child. She was told immediate family only was permitted.

So not only do we need to understand what marriage really is. We also need to understand what a family is. No longer is family what we thought it was in the 1950's or earlier. We have step-families, adopted families, and various kinds of families, as well as a mommy, daddy, and 2.5 children.

The far right desperately clings to a notion which is now decades past.

If the stupidty of a marriage amendment even makes progress in the United States, it will not just affect gays and lesbians, it will send a chilling note to all kinds of families that they are not equal. We can not continue to be in the business of creating second class citizens.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<I am still waiting for the logical reason as to how my committed and legal relationship with another man is a threat to marriage. Well there isn't one, so the radical right comes up with hysterical reasoning. >>

I agree. Moreover, I am not sure why marriage should be limited to two people. I mean, that is arbitrary. If 3 or more people love each other and are in a committed relationship, why should they be denied the benefits and legal rights enjoyed by couples?

And why should marriage be limited to adults? I mean, if an adult and a child love each other and are in a committed relationship, what is the problem? Age standards are arbitrary, as anyone can see by examining them over time, history, and throughout the world.

But then again, someone need not choose a human partner. Why should someone who relates more completely to other living things not be able to enjoy the benefits and preotection of legalized marriage in this country?

The people who oppose these views are closeminded gigoted fundies who are against equality.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
All we ask are the same rights in our relationships heterosexuals have in theirs. Some call that special treatment. I call it fairness. Personally I don't care if the marriage is blessed by a church or not. While it would be nice, I don't expect much there. I am talking about a civil marriage between two people. Not a civil union...that smacks of separate, but equal. I am talking about marriage.
-----

I don't think any of this is about 'fairness', or 'equal treatment'. All this hoopla about the 'sanctity' of marriage is nothing more than the last gasp of the homophobic religious right against recognizing the legitimacy of individuals to be who they are.
Just like that silly group signing the D&E abortion ban, it's all white men in dark suits. I'm curious why Xtian women aren't all up in arms about this too. Actually I'm not, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that they are not threatened by gay marriage.
Sure, I'm married. But we didn't marry to 'sanctify' our union. We did it for the legal aspect/benefits. We were fine living together for a few years, but then with kids, properties, insurance...it just made sense to legally marry. It's just a legal contract. Gender has nothing to do with it. Nor should some homophobic minority have anything to do with it either.
It's all about loss of power and control.



Rich

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 57
I agree. Moreover, I am not sure why marriage should be limited to two people. I mean, that is arbitrary. If 3 or more people love each other and are in a committed relationship, why should they be denied the benefits and legal rights enjoyed by couples?

And why should marriage be limited to adults? I mean, if an adult and a child love each other and are in a committed relationship, what is the problem? Age standards are arbitrary, as anyone can see by examining them over time, history, and throughout the world.

But then again, someone need not choose a human partner. Why should someone who relates more completely to other living things not be able to enjoy the benefits and preotection of legalized marriage in this country?

The people who oppose these views are closeminded gigoted fundies who are against equality.


Strawmen arguements.

1) Limiting marriage to adults: In order to enter into a marriage you must be able to concent and make an informed decision. Courts have upheld "age-discrimination" in all facets of law, from driving age to drinking age to voting age, and yes to marriage/sex. The actual AGE of adulthood/concent may be up for debate, which is why states have different age resitrictions on things like sexual concent, marriage and driving.

2) Limiting marriage to humans: Again, an animal cannot concent to enter into a legal contract. In addition, prohibiting beastiality has merit from a cruelty to animals standpoint. In may seem contradictory with laws which allow animal enslavement (pets) or meat-eating, but no one is going to argue that we are limiting the rights of animals if we don't allow humans to have sex with them, and marry them.

3) Polygamy: This one is trickier. The governement has set marriage up as a sort of contract between two people. Married people have certain rights (say to the other's property) in cases of death or divorce. Polygamy poses a huge practical nightmare for marriage laws. What if only one of the partners wished to take another partner. If both partners agree to marry a third, how will divorces be handled. Will the divorcing party be subject to alimony from BOTH previous partners, or just one? Who has custody of children? In anycase, the goverment is limiting the benefits and rights of marriage to one couple. They do NOT prohibit anyone from living AS IF they are married to more than one person, but only state that the legal benefits of marriage can only apply to ONE of the partners. But in no case does this violate the civil rights of any individual. The law does not prohibit who we have sex with, live with, share checking accounts with, etc. So the fact that marriage is limited to 2 people is not a civil rights issue.

It's discouraging that you would so easily fail to see the legal differences in gay marriage vs. age of concent, beastiality and polygamy. Whereas there are people who have a wide range of opinions on all of the above, from a legal standpoint the current laws are rock solid. But with gay marriage, the issue is what basis does the government have the authority to say only heterosexual people are allowed access to the legally conferred benefits of marriage?

It sounds like you have been listening to too much right-wing radio. The MO is to constantly relate gay marriage to child-sex and beastiality. It's a tired argument that holds no sway from a constitutional standpoint.

Oh, and you forgot to mention incest in your list. What if an adult father wants to have sex and marry his adult child? If we allow gay marriage we'll have brothers and sisters and fathers and daughter all demanding the right to get married!! I'll only point out that psychiatrists may not sleep with their patients as one example where the state has said that certain relationships exist where one party de facto is not in a position to be able to consent, due to the nature of the relationship.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Strawmen arguements.

Oops. That strawman statement was a remnant that should have been deleted. Not to mentioned it's spelled wrong. :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's discouraging that you would so easily fail to see the legal differences in gay marriage vs. age of concent, beastiality and polygamy.



HELLO - he's a troll! Did you expect something different? Why are you talking sense to a troll? For that matter, why talk to the troll? If that is the garbage he is spewing he can stay in the p-box.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
One couple who pursued this in the courts were a lesbian couple, who, one of the women was NOT allowed in the delivery room during the birth of their child. She was told immediate family only was permitted.


Can someone against gay marriage please provide ANY valid justification whatsoever why this woman, who will be bringing up this kid, was kept out of the delivery room?

Anyone?

I didn't think so.

Beast
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
animal cannot concent to enter into a legal contract

Ug. CONSENT. I know. People with horrible spelling like me should run all their posts through a spell-checker.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Polygamy poses a huge practical nightmare for marriage laws. What if only one of the partners wished to take another partner. If both partners agree to marry a third, how will divorces be handled. Will the divorcing party be subject to alimony from BOTH previous partners, or just one? Who has custody of children?

I don't think that's an adequate reason not to recognize poligamous marriages. Sure, there are issues involved, but just because they're thorny doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them.

I personally don't see anything inherently wrong with polygamy, aside from our cultural taboos. I've read a first-hand account or two from people in such relationships, and while they're rare, I don't think there's any less love in them than monogamous relationships.

Honestly, is it really that difficult to love more than one person? Why do we believe that if we fall in love with someone, we automatically stop loving anyone we may have loved before?

What if an adult father wants to have sex and marry his adult child?

Woody Allen managed this.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I agree. Moreover, I am not sure why marriage should be limited to two people. I mean, that is arbitrary. If 3 or more people love each other and are in a committed relationship, why should they be denied the benefits and legal rights enjoyed by couples?
And why should marriage be limited to adults? I mean, if an adult and a child love each other and are in a committed relationship, what is the problem? Age standards are arbitrary, as anyone can see by examining them over time, history, and throughout the world.
But then again, someone need not choose a human partner. Why should someone who relates more completely to other living things not be able to enjoy the benefits and preotection of legalized marriage in this country?
The people who oppose these views are closeminded [b]igoted fundies who are against equality.

-----

I sure glad we have theism around to keep pathological activity in check.


Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They do NOT prohibit anyone from living AS IF they are married to more than one person, but only state that the legal benefits of marriage can only apply to ONE of the partners.

I'd have to quibble with you here. One much-hyped Utah polygamist got in trouble for this. He was only legally married to one woman, and was basically shacking up with four others. But in the eyes of the law, he was still guilty of bigamy due to the nature of the realtionships.

Andrea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'd have to quibble with you here. One much-hyped Utah polygamist got in trouble for this. He was only legally married to one woman, and was basically shacking up with four others. But in the eyes of the law, he was still guilty of bigamy due to the nature of the realtionships.

Yes, it's true. He would marry one, then divorce her and marry the next one, etc. But wasn't he also convicted on the fact than at least one of his wives was 13 when he slept with her? In addition, the laws of divorce mandate some child-support payments...the obligation to pay is not decided by the other parent...so thus he was thousands and thousands of dollars behind on child support too.

But I'm curious as to what bigamy charges he was actually convited of, since I think he only had one "marriage" at a time that was actually legal.

In any case, had he been living with just TWO women (instead of 5) and maybe did not have children, I don't think he would have been spotted on state radar. Oh, and he also went on national tv. That didn't help him out.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes, it's true. He would marry one, then divorce her and marry the next one, etc. But wasn't he also convicted on the fact than at least one of his wives was 13 when he slept with her? In addition, the laws of divorce mandate some child-support payments...the obligation to pay is not decided by the other parent...so thus he was thousands and thousands of dollars behind on child support too.

But I'm curious as to what bigamy charges he was actually convited of, since I think he only had one "marriage" at a time that was actually legal.


It wasn't bigamy, it was welfare fraud; screwing a 13 year old was a later charge.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It wasn't bigamy, it was welfare fraud; screwing a 13 year old was a later charge.

Oh yes! That too. Since he would have all these children with different moms, and all the moms were "single moms" they all got welfare payments, which of course he was in charge of collecting to run the household.

In any case, it's insincere to compare gay marriage and polygamy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In any case, it's insincere to compare gay marriage and polygamy.




Now go explain that to Sen. Santorum.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Happy Ballooniversary, Gus.

Sandra
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'd have to quibble with you here. One much-hyped Utah polygamist got in trouble for this. He was only legally married to one woman, and was basically shacking up with four others. But in the eyes of the law, he was still guilty of bigamy due to the nature of the realtionships.

I don't remember the name of the guy but IIRC he had five wives and loads of kids.

Utah has started taking a more aggressive stance towards polygamy. It seems to me that they are not (yet?) really interested in consentual relationships between consenting adults.

The case you mentioned was prosecuted because statutory rape and welfare fraud were involved. One of the wives was 13 when the first child was conceived. IIRC four of the wives were drawing welfare and misrepresenting material facts about the father and support.

In another case abuse and incest were involved. The father 'gave' his minor daughter to a brother. When she fled her father caught her and beat her.

Randall
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Utah has started taking a more aggressive stance towards polygamy. It seems to me that they are not (yet?) really interested in consentual relationships between consenting adults.

Keep in mind that Utah had to adopt strict laws against polygamy as part of an agreement to become a state (which resulted in the polygamists moving to Arizona).

Of course, this case involved a lot more than polygamy. I would like to think that even if there were no laws against polygamy, that this case would be prosecuted on other grounds.


I guess I'm a little odd; I really don't see gay marraige as all that different from polygamy. But then again, I don't have problems with either. As long as it is a relationship between consenting adults, without causing harm to others, IMO it should be allowed.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As long as it is a relationship between consenting adults, without causing harm to others, IMO it should be allowed.

If you mean "permitted to exist", I can understand. But do you think people in polygamous relationships should be guaranteed all the legal benefits and rights of marriage?

Andrea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I guess I'm a little odd; I really don't see gay marraige as all that different from polygamy.


Can you explain this, please David.
I really don't get it.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It wasn't bigamy, it was welfare fraud; screwing a 13 year old was a later charge.

Oh yes! That too. Since he would have all these children with different moms, and all the moms were "single moms" they all got welfare payments, which of course he was in charge of collecting to run the household.


Here's some more info on the case. He actually was charged with bigamy, and the other stuff too. But I agree that he was singled out because he went on TV and made himself obnoxious.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/19/utah.polygamy/

Andrea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But wasn't he also convicted on the fact than at least one of his wives was 13 when he slept with her?

Yeah, you're correct.

"I'm Hannah. I married him fifth. I married him when I was 14," one wife said on a videotape, key evidence in the trial.

Green married and divorced the young women, but continued to live with them while they collected welfare.

Leavitt also said Green owes the state $54,000 for child support payments made by the state to the women even though Green was in the house.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy56.html

From my point of view, he seriously defaulted on the fiduciary responsibilities of marriage. If you're going to have 29 children, you should be in a financial position to support them. Having them collect welfare while married to him is fraud, in my opinion.

On the other hand, there are people who are rather more conscientious in such relationships. For me, the canonical example will always be these people: http://www.3coins.com/2coinsstory.html

They seem sincere, but I wonder about a lot of the stuff I read on their site. For example, they have "polygamy personal ads", which isn't about people who happen to be in love with more than one person, they're actively seeking another partner, or single women who want to become a 2nd wife for some unknowable reason.

http://www.3coins.com/couplesseeking.html
http://www.3coins.com/singlefemaleseeking.html

These range from ads which seem almost like standard personal ads, to deeply whacked out:

We live in a cave but are extremely happy and have space in it for more. A poor man is also entitled to Godhood and living the celestial laws as well as a wealthy man.

He's been a Church member since 1982. He's very respectful and kind, but serious. He is similar to the old Prophet, Jeremiah.

He was told that he would be given a continuation of the seeds forever, but he needs plurality of wives to do so.


Frequently, both the couples and the women looking for such relationships express deep religious beliefs, though not neccessarily Mormon ones. Several mention women "submitting" to men:

Ideally I would like a youthful husband, energetic and vigorous and able to take care of me and of the rest of his family. I would promise to be loving, caring and obedient at all times, as a truly Christian wife should be.

The relationships are always defined as being one man, several women. I suppose this isn't surprising, since the motivations in many cases seem to be religious beliefs or financial reasons, not genuine love for more than one person.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<1) Limiting marriage to adults: In order to enter into a marriage you must be able to concent and make an informed decision. Courts have upheld "age-discrimination" in all facets of law, from driving age to drinking age to voting age, and yes to marriage/sex. The actual AGE of adulthood/concent may be up for debate, which is why states have different age resitrictions on things like sexual concent, marriage and driving.>>

Sounds like you agree with me. The age restrictions are aribtrary. Certainly people of ages below 18 can love, and thus should be able to enter into a loving committed relationship.

<<2.Limiting marriage to humans: Again, an animal cannot concent to enter into a legal contract. In addition, prohibiting beastiality has merit from a cruelty to animals standpoint. In may seem contradictory with laws which allow animal enslavement (pets) or meat-eating, but no one is going to argue that we are limiting the rights of animals if we don't allow humans to have sex with them, and marry them.>>

It would be up to individual jurisdictions as to whether the consent of the animal would be required and in what form. Man descended from animals, certainly animals deserve better treatment than what we are giving them. But what about the rights of people? We are talking about a loving, committed relationship.

<<3) Polygamy: This one is trickier. The governement has set marriage up as a sort of contract between two people. Married people have certain rights (say to the other's property) in cases of death or divorce. Polygamy poses a huge practical nightmare for marriage laws. >>

You are being arbitrary. State law has mechanisms which could easily handle this objection.

<What if only one of the partners wished to take another partner. If both partners agree to marry a third, how will divorces be handled. >

It depends on who is divorcing whom. Existing property ownership mechanisms could accomoidate this.

<Will the divorcing party be subject to alimony from BOTH previous partners, or just one?>

The question of whether alimony is owed and by whom is governed by state law. The same principles would continue to apply.

<Who has custody of children?>

The child's parents, just like now.

<In anycase, the goverment is limiting the benefits and rights of marriage to one couple. They do NOT prohibit anyone from living AS IF they are married to more than one person, but only state that the legal benefits of marriage can only apply to ONE of the partners.>

That is the part that is wrong and must change!

<But in no case does this violate the civil rights of any individual.>

Why does the second partner get short changed? Which one has priority?

<The law does not prohibit who we have sex with, live with, share checking accounts with, etc. So the fact that marriage is limited to 2 people is not a civil rights issue.>

That is easy to say, but quite untrue if you happen to be in a loving committed relationship with a child, animal, or more than one of the above.

Your callous attitude about these issues is disturbing.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't think that's an adequate reason not to recognize poligamous marriages. Sure, there are issues involved, but just because they're thorny doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them.

Obviously, polyandry is quite acceptable also. Then we need to consider group marriages. I like my wife and myself to be all to ourselves, but WTFDIK?

What if an adult father wants to have sex and marry his adult child?

Woody Allen managed this.

Well, not quite. She was his wife's child, and not his, so there was no incest. Had he adopted her? I don't think so. That would be a more interesting situation.

666
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you mean "permitted to exist", I can understand. But do you think people in polygamous relationships should be guaranteed all the legal benefits and rights of marriage?

Andrea




Quite frankly, I think government should get out of the business of "regulating" marriage altogether. It shouldn't matter to the government whether a person is married or single. If the person has a paycheck, it gets taxed. That's it. It isn't (or should't be) the government's concern how people conduct their personal lives.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Of course, this case involved a lot more than polygamy. I would like to think that even if there were no laws against polygamy, that this case would be prosecuted on other grounds.


and (partly) because of the strict laws against polygamy, these folkers go
underground, and so not noticed.

like the song says, "since polygamy was outlawed, only outlaws are polygamists"

I guess I'm a little odd; I really don't see gay marraige as all that different from polygamy. But then again, I don't have problems with either. As long as it is a relationship between consenting adults, without causing harm to others, IMO it should be allowed.


agree.

only difference i see is that wrt gay marriage, it's a pretty large minority are harmed
because it's outlawed.
wrt to polygamy , it's maybe a smaller minority

"if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow polygamy!"
SO?


-j
....descended from polygamists
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<It's discouraging that you would so easily fail to see the legal differences in gay marriage vs. age of concent, beastiality and polygamy. Whereas there are people who have a wide range of opinions on all of the above, from a legal standpoint the current laws are rock solid.>>

Laws are always rock solid, until they change.

<But with gay marriage, the issue is what basis does the government have the authority to say only heterosexual people are allowed access to the legally conferred benefits of marriage?>

Yes but why are you discriminating against other types of committed loving relationships? YOu have no basis for doing so. Someone who loves anyone who is not an adult of the opposite sex is losing rights under the present structure. It HAS to go.

<It sounds like you have been listening to too much right-wing radio. The MO is to constantly relate gay marriage to child-sex and beastiality. >

Actually the ideas are my own. They stem from logic and fairness, not idealogy. What is it about your mind-set that requires someone with an opposing view to be marginalized?

<It's a tired argument that holds no sway from a constitutional standpoint>

You are mistaken there. "Equal Protection" could be interpreted broadly enough to cover the issues that I raised. Will it be? Who knows. The current controversy was unthinkable just a decade ago. Thanbksfully, this is changing.

<Oh, and you forgot to mention incest in your list. What if an adult father wants to have sex and marry his adult child? If we allow gay marriage we'll have brothers and sisters and fathers and daughter all demanding the right to get married!!>

I would not put that in the same category, for health reasons as well as others.

<I'll only point out that psychiatrists may not sleep with their patients as one example where the state has said that certain relationships exist where one party de facto is not in a position to be able to consent, due to the nature of the relationship. >

That is an old, tired argument that holds no sway, legally. Certainly it is widely ignored.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
But do you think people in polygamous relationships should be guaranteed all the legal benefits and rights of marriage?

You mean like being able to be in the hospital room when the baby is born, or when the one is sick or dying? Do you mean like automatic inheritance rights, with no taxation? Do you mean like the right to pay more taxes because of being married?

Yes, I think these rights should obtain.

cliff™
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Quite frankly, I think government should get out of the business of "regulating" marriage altogether.

When there are only adults involved, I agree with you. It gets stickier when there are children involved. I think sometimes it's necessary for the courts to step in and force irresponsible parents to pay child support, for example.

But then, that's not so much regulating marriage as regulating parenthood.

Andrea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I guess I'm a little odd; I really don't see gay marraige as all that different from polygamy.

//////
Can you explain this, please David.
I really don't get it.


they're both taboos.... based on someone's interpretation of a very old book

if you're not overly impressed with the book,
and even less impressed with the interpeters...

Zack Same.


-j
...... not David, but lived with a woman who'd been married to one
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<It's just a legal contract. Gender has nothing to do with it.>>

Right. Nor should age or species. These distinctions are arbitrary.

Nor should some homophobic minority have anything to do with it either.>>

AGREED

<It's all about loss of power and control.>

Yep.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

"if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow polygamy!"



and polyandry!

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<HELLO - he's a troll! Did you expect something different? Why are you talking sense to a troll? For that matter, why talk to the troll? If that is the garbage he is spewing he can stay in the p-box.>>

What you are spewing is bias, and hate. You need to open your mind and quit being so intolerant.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=19774348
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow polygamy!"

and polyandry!


IIRC, "polygamy" is non gender-specific.

"Polygyny" means multiple wives, while "polyandry" means multiple husbands. IIRC, that is.

Andrea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Obviously, polyandry is quite acceptable also. Then we need to consider group marriages. I like my wife and myself to be all to ourselves, but WTFDIK?

Polygamy is a term that encompasses polyandry and polygyny and group marriages, so yes. As for how such relationships form, that's a different question. I think it's deeply weird to go looking while you're already married, or just a sign that you want a divorce. I'm thinking more of cases where the emotional relationship grows on its own.

I thought Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress did an interesting job exploring a culture where polygamy was common, and it's relatively free of the purile bent that haunted books like The Number of the Beast.

Well, not quite. She was his wife's child, and not his, so there was no incest. Had he adopted her? I don't think so.

I think the argument that a parental relationship impairs the ability to consent still applies if you're living with a child's mother and acting as a father, even if you haven't legally adopted the child.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<In any case, it's insincere to compare gay marriage and polygamy. >

It all depends on what you think the minimum requirement is for a marriage. I believe it is a loving committed relationship. What could be more sincere than that?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Well, not quite. She was his wife's child, and not his, so there was no incest. Had he adopted her? I don't think so.

//////
I think the argument that a parental relationship impairs the ability to consent still applies if you're living with a child's mother and acting as a father, even if you haven't legally adopted the child.


good point.

my recollection is she was adopted by Mia, but not by Woody,

but was Very Young...


-j
.....and Woody's older than dirt
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

and....... nice 'Loons, gus


-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Frequently, both the couples and the women looking for such relationships express deep religious beliefs, though not neccessarily Mormon ones. Several mention women "submitting" to men:

<<The relationships are always defined as being one man, several women.

Gusmed, I assume you are relatively unfamiliar with Mormonism.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cliffie asks:

"...but WTFDIK?"

I must admit, the point you make here is very very compelling.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<only difference i see is that wrt gay marriage, it's a pretty large minority are harmed
because it's outlawed.
wrt to polygamy , it's maybe a smaller minority >>

Call it the tyranny of the larger minority.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sounds like you agree with me. The age restrictions are aribtrary. Certainly people of ages below 18 can love, and thus should be able to enter into a loving committed relationship.

I AM agreeing with you! It is up for debate what the age of consent should be! Do you admit that a 3 year old should NOT be allowed to make the decision to get married and/or have sex? The EXISTENCE of this line based on age is not a constitutional issue.

The EXISTENCE of a line that separates adults from marrying a person of the same sex IS a constitutional issue.

I won't respond to your other arguments, as they are very weak attempts equate other issues where it is clear the constitution allows us for laws such as beastiality to exist. I.e., you may DISAGREE that it harms an animal when a human has sex for it, but it within the Constitution for laws to exist which prohibit certain actions agains animals.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<I AM agreeing with you! It is up for debate what the age of consent should be! Do you admit that a 3 year old should NOT be allowed to make the decision to get married and/or have sex? The EXISTENCE of this line based on age is not a constitutional issue. >

Sure it is. A 15 year old is being denied rights due to this arbirary restriction under state law. It is clealry unconstitutional, as he/she is being denied equal protection.

<I won't respond to your other arguments, as they are very weak attempts equate other issues where it is clear the constitution allows us for laws such as beastiality to exist. I.e., you may DISAGREE that it harms an animal when a human has sex for it, but it within the Constitution for laws to exist which prohibit certain actions agains animals. >

What you are missing is that people wishing to do these things but being unable to are being denied EQUAL PROTECTION. The basis for a constituional argument for gay marriage would be the Equal Protection clause. So as much as you might wish to make a distinction, you have a tough argument.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It all depends on what you think the minimum requirement is for a marriage. I believe it is a loving committed relationship. What could be more sincere than that?

A five year old cannot agree to marriage, since a 5 year old cannot understand the implications that a commitment like marriage entails, nor the rights and responsibilies of getting married. A 5 year old cannot read the marriage certificate that has to be signed, nor can it be read to a 5 year old with comprehension.

But you are free to argue that we should allow a 5 year old to get married (and presumable to consent to sex?) if that's what you want to argue. Can a 5 year old feel love? Sure. Can he be in a committed relationship? Depends. Can he understand what it means to be in a legally binding contract? No.

If you can find ONE PERSON in this ENTIRE COUNTRY who honestly believes that there should be NO age limit AT ALL on marriage and sex, I'd be shocked. Where to actually DRAW the line is an entirely different matter. Marriage is a contract, and in order for a contract to be legal, both parties have to be able to understand the terms of the contract.

Or are you saying we should let 5 year olds open businesses, apply for loans, obtain credit, etc. Because I'm SURE I can get my 5 year old nephew to sign a contract that gives me a percentage of all of his future earnings in exchange for the candy bar I'll give him...

Again, can you explain to me why you believe the constitution prohibits any age-based restictions on legal rights and obligations?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<If you can find ONE PERSON in this ENTIRE COUNTRY who honestly believes that there should be NO age limit AT ALL on marriage and sex, I'd be shocked.>>

OH please. Let's wager, make it interesting. You can't be serious. I never argued for no limit whatsoever, I just stated that existing limits are arbitrary.

<Where to actually DRAW the line is an entirely different matter. Marriage is a contract, and in order for a contract to be legal, both parties have to be able to understand the terms of the contract.>

Agreed.

<Again, can you explain to me why you believe the constitution prohibits any age-based restictions on legal rights and obligations? >

That is not what I said. I said the existing age limits on marriage are arbitrary, which is true. The argument would be for equal protection.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is not what I said. I said the existing age limits on marriage are arbitrary, which is true. The argument would be for equal protection.

Come on, even you can do better than that. There is no equal protection issue in this case. Otherwise we'd have to let 8 year olds vote, and 9 year olds drive.

And just like we don't let men have sex with adult women in comas (despite the fact that there may exist men who claim their rights to have sex with women in comas should not be restricted), we don't have to let men have sex with young children. It is not an equal protection case at all.

Again, I agree the age limits are arbitrary. But they are not unconstitutional. But saying that a GAY man may not drive, or vote, or go into a bar, or have sex, now THAT'S an equal protection issue...and one to which many think gay marriage should be included.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But do you think people in polygamous relationships should be guaranteed all the legal benefits and rights of marriage?


As they stand, no. Many of the benefits of marriage do not really work past a couple. Tax laws in particular would be a mess (as if they aren't already).
But I do think that they should be able to have the benefits such as being allowed to have children, make medical decisions (although that can be additionally difficult if there is disagreement), etc. And of course, they should also have the same responsibilities of married couples, at least the ones that make sense for a relationship >2.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can you explain this, please David.
I really don't get it.


Well, as long as a relationship is involving consenting adults (so the cases with a 13 year old wife don't count), I don't see why it should be forbidden. I don't see how I am affected if the gay couple down the street is legally married, nor do I see how I (or anyone else) would be affected if my friend were allowed to make his live-in girlfriend his second wife.

I simply don't see any reason to object to either on a moral basis.

David

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Ffl: Or are you saying we should let 5 year olds open businesses, apply for loans, obtain credit, etc. Because I'm SURE I can get my 5 year old nephew to sign a contract that gives me a percentage of all of his future earnings in exchange for the candy bar I'll give him...
Again, can you explain to me why you believe the constitution prohibits any age-based restictions on legal rights and obligations?

-----

Ffl, this is not directed at you, but just so you know what you're dealing with.

From the AF FAQ;

Q. Everybody keeps complaining about jello for some reason. I like jello. What's wrong with that?
A. Here, read this.
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=14132669
If people start to reply to you by mentioning jello a lot, it means you that arguing with you has started to feel like "nailing jello to a wall", that you aren't addressing the points that have been made to you, and that you are probably a few posts away from going in several penalty boxes. It's not a nice way to behave, and it gives theologians a bad name. So please don't do it.


With that in mind, enjoy the jello.



(-;
Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<Come on, even you can do better than that. There is no equal protection issue in this case. Otherwise we'd have to let 8 year olds vote, and 9 year olds drive.>

I can only assume you are missing the point intentionally. Good day.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Ffl, this is not directed at you, but just so you know what you're dealing with. >>

Tenworlds: I addressed his points directly, and each one of them. What is your deal? You are a funny guy.

Am I going to have to help you define Jello?

ROFLLIKLB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can you explain this, please David.
I really don't get it.

Well, as long as a relationship is involving consenting adults (so the cases with a 13 year old wife don't count), I don't see why it should be forbidden. I don't see how I am affected if the gay couple down the street is legally married, nor do I see how I (or anyone else) would be affected if my friend were allowed to make his live-in girlfriend his second wife.

I simply don't see any reason to object to either on a moral basis.

David




Thanks. I misunderstood the meaning of your earlier post.
And I agree with you.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 215
As Charlie knows, when I was a teenager, my mother, then in her fifth traditional heterosexual marriage, decided she didn't want a teenage daughter complicating her life. I went to stay with a very loving, very happy, very successful gay couple who met while they were both serving in the army in 1942. Despite knowing that homosexuality was a court martial offense back then, they kept their relationship quiet but wore wedding rings. Everyone assumed they had wives back in the States.

When I lived with them, they had been together more than thirty years. They had a nice three bedroom home, one which was mine and from which they politely ignored the mess and Alice Cooper/P-Funk/Rudolph Nureyev/Star Wars posters. Except for taco day in the cafeteria, I always found a nice bag lunch waiting for me before I went to school. They attended my school performances, taught me how to drive, would not let me out of the house unless I was dressed properly ("You are not going outside my home dressed like a French hooker!"), played poker with their old Army buddies once a week, paid their bills on time, squabbled on occasion like any old married couple, came down on me when I deserved it... in short, they were a normal family.

These wonderful gentlemen should have been allowed to marry legally. They did everything married people were supposed to do, including raising me (for which they deserve major bonus points). They were in a committed, monagamous relationship until 1987, when one passed away. That was forty-five years of togetherness.

If you ask me, they did not make a travesty of marriage. In fact, they were the most married couple I've ever had the honor to meet.

Uhura
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
These wonderful gentlemen should have been allowed to marry legally. They did everything married people were supposed to do, including raising me (for which they deserve major bonus points). They were in a committed, monagamous relationship until 1987, when one passed away. That was forty-five years of togetherness.

If you ask me, they did not make a travesty of marriage. In fact, they were the most married couple I've ever had the honor to meet.

Uhura


Beautifully said.

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
These wonderful gentlemen should have been allowed to marry legally. They did everything married people were supposed to do, including raising me (for which they deserve major bonus points). They were in a committed, monagamous relationship until 1987, when one passed away. That was forty-five years of togetherness.
If you ask me, they did not make a travesty of marriage. In fact, they were the most married couple I've ever had the honor to meet.
Uhura

-----

And you turned out straight? However on earth did that happen? Those guys must not have heard about the 'gay agenda' of taking over society by corrupting the morals of young teens.



(-;
Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Uhura,

That is the best post I have read all day.

Thanks,
Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

These wonderful gentlemen should have been allowed to marry legally. They did everything married people were supposed to do, including raising me (for which they deserve major bonus points). They were in a committed, monagamous relationship until 1987, when one passed away. That was forty-five years of togetherness.

If you ask me, they did not make a travesty of marriage. In fact, they were the most married couple I've ever had the honor to meet.

Uhura




Wow! What a wonderful post!

Wish I could rec it a dozen times at least.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Beautifully said.

g2w

Yup. Beautiful couple, too.

666
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Uhura...I nominate this for Post of the Day! What a wonderful family you were part of!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They had a nice three bedroom home, one which was mine and from which they politely ignored the mess and Alice Cooper/P-Funk/Rudolph Nureyev/Star Wars posters.

If they ignored the Nureyev posters they must have been discreet indeed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Beautifully said.
g2w

Yup. Beautiful couple, too.


yup...... maybe That's the point...

people like this make most hetero-couples look bad.

lucky to have known them you were



-j
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And you turned out straight? However on earth did that happen? Those guys must not have heard about the 'gay agenda' of taking over society by corrupting the morals of young teens.

Well, they never did insist that I go to church, and they introduced me to the joys of Rosalind Russell. Does that count?

Uhura
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, they never did insist that I go to church, and they introduced me to the joys of Rosalind Russell.



LOL...they were SO gay!

:-)Charlie
...loves Auntie Mame...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow polygamy!"



and polyandry!

I need 3 spouses (spice?)

One to do traditional husband stuff: yard work, car maintenance, hose upkeep...

One to do traditional wife stuff: sewing, cleaning, errands...

One for back rubs, foot massage, sex ...

The gender doesn't really matter except for the sex part.

Each can have his/her own room/mini apartment; get an allowance; medical insurance...

Maybe we could incorporate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you can find ONE PERSON in this ENTIRE COUNTRY who honestly believes that there should be NO age limit AT ALL on marriage and sex, I'd be shocked. Where to actually DRAW the line is an entirely different matter. Marriage is a contract, and in order for a contract to be legal, both parties have to be able to understand the terms of the contract.

I nthink the age was 13 in MS and UT until recently.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Well, they never did insist that I go to church, and they introduced me to the joys of Rosalind Russell.


///////
LOL...they were SO gay!

:-)Charlie
...loves Auntie Mame...


the .TRUE. Homosexualist Agenda:

promoting appreciation of RosalindRussell and JudyGarland (and others?)



-b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Can someone against gay marriage please provide ANY valid justification whatsoever why this woman, who will be bringing up this kid, was kept out of the delivery room?

Anyone?

I didn't think so.


Didn't wait long to decide you don't think so did you?

Say it with me now, 'liability'. Say it loud 'liability'. Say it strong 'liability'.

The hospital allows immediate family because if something weird happens(the husband flips out and does something stupid) they can't be sued for negligence in allowing him there.

If the partner does the same, no dice.

I doubt any hospital would not allow someone in the delivery room IF the in labour mother requested. If she is too far gone to request, well, than liability rears it's ugly head.

Don't like it? Get out there and work on changing our litagacious(sp?)society.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Polygamy: This one is trickier. The governement has set marriage up as a sort of contract between two people. Married people have certain rights (say to the other's property) in cases of death or divorce. Polygamy poses a huge practical nightmare for marriage laws

Is that any trickier than allowing marriage between 2 same sex individuals? Face it, marriage between 2 striaght people comes with a bunch of expectations. It is those expectations which can form the basis of those two people being granted a divorce, as well as forming the basis for dividing the family assets, assigning custody, setting alimony payments, etc. There is no set formula for doing this sort of thing.

In essence, you are asking the goverment to take on the burden of extending that fuzzy logic to homosexuals.

Personally, I don't think that as a society, our legal system is ready for this. This will take a societal change in perceptions and attitudes. Judges appoited who accept homosexuality on an emotional, not just a legal, level.

Untill then, I don't support mandating gay marriages. I think that in an ideal society they should be as permissible as straight marriages. I think that we, as a people, should work to make that world a reality. But it is time yet.

I also beleive that this is an issue to be determined by the STATE. Not the Federal goverment. So if California, Vermont, and Mass are ready as a society to tackle the issue, more power to them.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I doubt any hospital would not allow someone in the delivery room IF the in labour mother requested.

Wrong. When the policy is "immediate family", that is what they mean, even if the mother requests someone else. This may be rare in birthing rooms, but is very typical in emergency rooms.

As for the "gone to far" part (I assume you mean that the mother is in too much pain to speak saying "Bring me my lover" or something like that) well, once again, the problem is in not allowing marriage. If they were married, then your whole litigation idea goes out the window.

Don't like it? Get out there and work on changing our litagacious(sp?)society.

How about changing the homophobic society as well?

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Don't like it? Get out there and work on changing our litagacious(sp?)society.

////
How about changing the homophobic society as well?


don't even have to change society.... just change the homophobic laws.
(much easier than changing society in any way
)


-j
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Is that any trickier than allowing marriage between 2 same sex individuals? Face it, marriage between 2 striaght people comes with a bunch of expectations. It is those expectations which can form the basis of those two people being granted a divorce, as well as forming the basis for dividing the family assets, assigning custody, setting alimony payments, etc. There is no set formula for doing this sort of thing.


Well, for an example of tricky, let's look at the husband being killed in an accident.

The wife in a monogamous situation ends up a widow, inheriting her husband's estate tax free. She is now free to re-marry.

But in the case of a husband with 5 wives dying, are the women still in a contractual arrangment with each other? What about re-marriage; do they all have to agree? What if 4 want to stay together, and one wants to leave; who gets the estate?

Then there's divorce; if one of these 5 wives gets divorced from the husband (I'm using all one man many wives examples, but they work the same the other way), how much of the community property is she entitled to?
These situations are much trickier in a multiple marriage than in a traditional one. Not insurmountable problems, but certainly complicated.
I don't even want to think about an arrangement with multiple members of both sexes.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<How about changing the homophobic society as well?>

Aren't you being a bit narrow? What about the polygamophobic, beastialophobic, and pedophobics?

And while you are at it, don't forget the faithophobics, many of which post here?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wrong. When the policy is "immediate family", that is what they mean, even if the mother requests someone else

Look into Doula's. They are people hired by the mother to provide labour support. They are generally not affiliated with hospitals. And hospitals generally allow them into the birthing room at the mother's request. Even though the policy is "immediate family".

I find it hard to beleive that if a mother can insist on the presence of her doula, she can't insist on the presence of her lover.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But in the case of a husband with 5 wives dying, are the women still in a contractual arrangment with each other? What about re-marriage; do they all have to agree? What if 4 want to stay together, and one wants to leave; who gets the estate?

Then there's divorce; if one of these 5 wives gets divorced from the husband (I'm using all one man many wives examples, but they work the same the other way), how much of the community property is she entitled to?


I think you're making this more complicated sounding than it needs to be. We have such legal relationships already. They're called "partnerships." My father-in-law was part of a successful pathology lab, which involved several people. New partners had to "buy in", contribute (usually over time) a financial stake proportionate to the shares of the existing partners. When he retired, they had to "buy him out", pay him the cash value of his share of the lab.

SF stories have been exploring these issues for decades. Off the top of my head, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Friday (by Heinlein) and The Quiet Pools (Michael Kube-McDowell) touched on those subjects.

I don't even want to think about an arrangement with multiple members of both sexes.

I don't think that changes anything.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think you're making this more complicated sounding than it needs to be. We have such legal relationships already.

I'm not trying to make it sound as if these problems are insurmountable; but certainly the rules for a 2 person marriage do not cover situations that arise only in multiple relationships, therefore the multiple relationships are more complicated.
Not impossible, just more complicated. Answers are needed to questions that are not even asked in a traditional marriage.

SF stories have been exploring these issues for decades. Off the top of my head, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Friday (by Heinlein) and The Quiet Pools (Michael Kube-McDowell) touched on those subjects.

Yes, I love Heinlein; and got a lot of ideas from his writings. But in at least some of his examples, the priviledges that come from marriage are much less than society expects today, so the transition to a multiple marriage is less complicated.

Still, it can be done, and I don't see it as a bad idea (although DW may disagree.) ;-)

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5

I also beleive that this is an issue to be determined by the STATE. Not the Federal goverment. So if California, Vermont, and Mass are ready as a society to tackle the issue, more power to them.





Excuse me, but this is only an *ISSUE* because the religious community is choosing to make it one. If they would just butt out of other people's lives, there would be no *ISSUE*.

It seems that "equal rights" is a concept totally alien to them.
Since when does it matter whether a judge is "emotionally" ok with something before s/he rules? All that has to be done is to follow the law. No judge has to like the law, hate the law, or even be indifferent to the law. S/he only has to follow it. How difficult can this be?

And a marriage is a marriage. Why would dissolving one marriage be any more difficult than dissolving another just because the sex of the people involved is different. When I got my divorce, I don't recall having to display my private parts to prove that I was a particular sex as some kind of "test" before a divorce was granted. And I don't know that my "sex" made the divorce any easier or more complicated than it would have been if I had been the opposite "sex".

Your argument doesn't hold up.
The religious community's argument does not hold up.
There is no excuse for this kind of discrimination. None whatsoever.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Then there's divorce; if one of these 5 wives gets divorced from the husband (I'm using all one man many wives examples, but they work the same the other way), how much of the community property is she entitled to?
//////
I think you're making this more complicated sounding than it needs to be. We have such legal relationships already. They're called "partnerships." My father-in-law was part of a successful pathology lab, which involved several people. New partners had to "buy in", contribute (usually over time) a financial stake proportionate to the shares of the existing partners. When he retired, they had to "buy him out", pay him the cash value of his share of the lab.


it's a bit more complicated than that...

your FILs lab probably had a lawyer or two writing the partnership contracts....

with marriage, we have a tradition that it be easier to marry than to buy a car,
so to keep that Sacred aspect of the thing.. we couldn't require lawyers...

there is, however, enough "Partnership Law" to deal with it.... and would take
a judge about 2 sec. to realize the analogy is adequate.



-j
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Still, it can be done, and I don't see it as a bad idea (although DW may disagree.)

There's always that factor. Guys read about this stuff, and internally they think, "heh heh heh, I'd sure like to be sleeping with 2 (or more) attractive women." Whereupon their wives slap them upside the head.

I think Heinlein's view of the subject shifted more and more to a puerile "I should be allowed to sleep with every attractive woman on the planet" view as he got older.

Because of that, it's easy to see it as being all about sex. What helps me keep this in perspective was remembering being genuinely in love with two different women in college. I married one of them; I would have been happy to marry the other instead, but it didn't work out that way.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Untill then, I don't support mandating gay marriages. I think that in an ideal society they should be as permissible as straight marriages. I think that we, as a people, should work to make that world a reality. But it is time yet.

I also beleive that this is an issue to be determined by the STATE. Not the Federal goverment. So if California, Vermont, and Mass are ready as a society to tackle the issue, more power to them.


<delurk>
There used to be state laws prohibiting interracial marriages, too. Should that issue have been left up to the states? It took the US Supreme Court (Virginia v. Loving, 1967) to strike down those laws.

I hope that soon gay couples will have the same legal rights and social acceptance that interracial couples do.
</delurk>


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Strawman arguements.

I propose that in the future we refer to these more precisely as "Stupidman arguments."
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There's always that factor. Guys read about this stuff, and internally they think, "heh heh heh, I'd sure like to be sleeping with 2 (or more) attractive women." Whereupon their wives slap them upside the head.

Personally, I'm not sure I could handle more than one.

Come to think of it, adding another guy to the mix might make things easier.

;-)

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There's always that factor. Guys read about this stuff, and internally they think, "heh heh heh, I'd sure like to be sleeping with 2 (or more) attractive women." Whereupon their wives slap them upside the head.

BTW, the one guy that I know that is in a polygamous relationship got into that because his wife was about to leave him for a woman. Turns out that the woman ended up liking my friend too, so they just ended up together. But the relationship is as much (or maybe a touch more) between the two women than between the second woman and my friend.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is not just the "radical right" and "religious freaks" that are opposed to gay marriages (see excerpts and links below). Stereotyping conservatives/Republicans/religious people as insecure, bigoted jerks is no better than the stereotypes that gays are promiscuous, corrupt children, and try to force their sexuality on any person of the same sex. Stereotyping is bad, no matter from which direction it comes.

But to say that only the "right" opposes gay marriage while the "left" supports it is not true.

DK

===========================================
Moreover, when asked specifically about the idea of homosexual marriages, 53 percent of respondents said they were opposed. The portion favoring such unions (18 percent) was smaller than the group that offered that they didn't really care (27 percent). But problems lurk for Democrats inside those relatively unsurprising numbers. More than one-third (37 percent) of those who indicated that they would vote for John Kerry said they opposed homosexual marriages. Among the crucial moderate bloc, those who oppose homosexual marriages outnumberthose who favor them, 48 percent to 19 percent.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030728-084140-2219r.htm

Between 1992 and 2002, the percentage of Americans who said it was wrong for people to engage in homosexual sex fell from 75 percent to 56 percent - "a huge drop," according to Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the University of Chicago. He attributed that in part to the deaths of elderly Americans who disapprove of gay life, along with an increased acceptance of homosexuals encouraged by the Clinton administration.
But in a recent reversal, a Gallup poll taken after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June showed that Americans' approval of civil unions between homosexuals decreased from 49 percent to 40 percent.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6990551.htm

A new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reports that while a majority of the public continues to oppose gay marriage, support has been gradually building in recent years. Pew found that 53 percent of respondents said they opposed same-sex marriages, while 38 percent said they backed them. In 1996, 65 percent said they opposed such marriages, while 27 percent favored them.
Still, a newly released Gallup Poll revealed a big shift in views on homosexuality since the Supreme Court's sodomy decision. Public support for the legalization of homosexual relations dropped from 60 percent in May to 48 percent in mid-July.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/washington/cst-edt-laura04.html

Most of the Democratic presidential candidates went to great lengths on Tuesday to emphasize that they opposed gay marriage, even as they restated their support for some forms of legal rights for same-sex couples.
.
.
A poll of 1,515 Americans, conducted Oct. 15 through Oct. 19 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and released on Tuesday, found that 59 percent of respondents opposed gay marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/politics/campaigns/19ASSE.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the .TRUE. Homosexualist Agenda:

promoting appreciation of RosalindRussell and JudyGarland (and others?)


I guess I'm going to lose my gay card, but I don't know who Rosalind Russell is and I'm not a big fan of Judy or Babs.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I guess I'm going to lose my gay card, but I don't know who Rosalind Russell is


OMG!
And I thought Andrea was young!
YOU! Go to the back of the library!
And stay there until you KNOW who Rosalind Russell is!
Go! GO! GO!!!

Harumph!
Doesn't know who Rosalind Russell is....

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I doubt any hospital would not allow someone in the delivery room IF the in labour mother requested. If she is too far gone to request, well, than liability rears it's ugly head.


I got the impression from Charlie's original request that the hospital overuled the in labor mother's request.

I tend to agree with you that only the person giving birth gets to decide who watches...

Beast.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
BTW, the one guy that I know that is in a polygamous relationship got into that because his wife was about to leave him for a woman. Turns out that the woman ended up liking my friend too, so they just ended up together.

That's my point. If your friend's wife no longer loved him, she would have just divorced him, right? Ergo, she only felt she had to leave him because of our cultural conditioning that if you love someone else, you must leave your current spouse, even if you still love them.

Because they worked something else out, your friend's marriage survived, although in a form that would no doubt offend some people. At least in his case, a less rigid approach to what marriage is made his marriage more stable.

But the relationship is as much (or maybe a touch more) between the two women than between the second woman and my friend.

I think that's just the case sometimes.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But the relationship is as much (or maybe a touch more) between the two women than between the second woman and my friend.

I think that's just the case sometimes.


Probably so. But I find the idea of the multiple relationships where the women have nothing to do with each other to be a little shallow. I just can't see having a relationship where the feelings are not shared all around, at least to some extent. It would seem that otherwise, the relationships would break down, or to keep them, you would need some sort of subservience attitude (which is common in many of the Mormon breakoff polygamous families that get all the press).

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Probably so. But I find the idea of the multiple relationships where the women have nothing to do with each other to be a little shallow. I just can't see having a relationship where the feelings are not shared all around, at least to some extent.

I don't think I would want to marry a girl who was willing to share me with another girl.

And I definitely wouldn't want two wives who loved each other in any sort of non-platonic way. Men are so comparitively foul and insensitive, it would just be a matter of time before the women realized they didn't need me anymore.
:/

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
OMG!
And I thought Andrea was young!
YOU! Go to the back of the library!
And stay there until you KNOW who Rosalind Russell is!
Go! GO! GO!!!

Harumph!
Doesn't know who Rosalind Russell is....

AM


Duly adding Auntie Mame to my Netflix queue.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I just can't see having a relationship where the feelings are not shared all around, at least to some extent. It would seem that otherwise, the relationships would break down, or to keep them, you would need some sort of subservience attitude (which is common in many of the Mormon breakoff polygamous families that get all the press).

I think friendship would be enough. For example, I can imagine being in a marriage with a woman I really loved, who was also married to a good friend of mine. I wouldn't want to have sex with him, or even be in the same bed while they had sex, but I think it would be OK otherwise. I wouldn't want to be in such a relationship if I didn't like and respect the other guy.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
For example, I can imagine being in a marriage with a woman I really loved, who was also married to a good friend of mine. I wouldn't want to have sex with him, or even be in the same bed while they had sex, but I think it would be OK otherwise.

Oh yeah, and I would most definitely, never ever, ever, marry a woman who expected me to share her with another man. I wouldn't even think about asking her to marry me.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I guess I'm going to lose my gay card, but I don't know who Rosalind Russell is and I'm not a big fan of Judy or Babs.


Mark,

It's ok. You are young. Rosalind Russell was in the movie Auntie Mame. See it, it is a really fun movie.

I am not a fan of Babs; never have been. We need to talk about Judy though.

:-)Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But then again, someone need not choose a human partner.

It's OK to love your dog, just don't love your dog.

hoover

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
UhuraY2K:

What a wonderful story. And it's more common than even I -- with my same-sex partner of six years and extended family of similar couples -- imagined.

For 8 years, I researched a couple together at the University of Chciago for ~35 years from 1956 to their deaths in 1991 and 1993. I interviewed over 200 mostly same-sex couples who knew them, and it could have gone on and on. I suspect that this has "gone on" forever, as the sociologists tell us under different guises.

I'm (well, my agent) is still looking for a publisher. Which is one reason I suspect why much of this does not get told.

Thanks for your wonderful post.

Best wishes,
Tom Jacobs (TMF Tom9)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
(..."Honey, I'm home, how about a little lovin?"

"Sorry babe, I already had sex with my other husband. Can we just watch some TV or play connect-four?"...)

I wouldn't last three days in a relationship like that. These things are pretty easy to talk about, but in reality my emotions would make me miserable in that situation. And I don't really envy someone with an emotional set that would allow for this sort of arrangement.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't think I would want to marry a girl who was willing to share me with another girl.



You shouldn't be marrying "girls" anyway.
They have laws against that sort of thing. ;o)

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

I just can't see having a relationship where the feelings are not shared all around, at least to some extent. It would seem that otherwise, the relationships would break down, or to keep them, you would need some sort of subservience attitude (which is common in many of the Mormon breakoff polygamous families that get all the press).

I think friendship would be enough. For example, I can imagine being in a marriage with a woman I really loved, who was also married to a good friend of mine. I wouldn't want to have sex with him, or even be in the same bed while they had sex, but I think it would be OK otherwise. I wouldn't want to be in such a relationship if I didn't like and respect the other guy.

- Gus




You know... love is a strange and wonderful thing.
You can't just turn it on and off at will.
You may deny it. Or you may pursue it.
Either way, if you love someone - then you love them.
And if you don't, you don't.
It isn't like picking out china or a new car.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
(..."Honey, I'm home, how about a little lovin?"




If this is the way you approach you wife for intimacy, I'm surprised you ever get any at all. ;o)


AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

It's ok. You are young. Rosalind Russell was in the movie Auntie Mame. See it, it is a really fun movie.

i also love "his girl friday"
dont know (don't much care) ....whether appreciating Roz really a 'gay thing'

<G>

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0751426/


I am not a fan of Babs; never have been. We need to talk about Judy though.

Babs?



-j
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Babs?

Barbara Streisand

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You shouldn't be marrying "girls" anyway.
They have laws against that sort of thing. ;o)


AM, you seem to apply this rule only when it is convenient. You called yourself a girl just a week or two ago.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You know... love is a strange and wonderful thing.
You can't just turn it on and off at will.
You may deny it. Or you may pursue it.
Either way, if you love someone - then you love them.
And if you don't, you don't.
It isn't like picking out china or a new car.


Well said. That's why I think Wafa's comments about how he can't conceive of wanting someone who was willing to share him, or who expected him to share her, lack context.

In the abstract, sure, that makes sense. You can even see how evolution would encourage such feelings, and the corresponding emotion of jealousy, which I personally have never felt.

The true test of how you feel, though, is to imagine the situations with someone who you truly love, not some abstraction. The best example would be someone you loved who was in a relationship with someone else, who liked you a great deal, and who might have been interested in you if they weren't currently involved with someone else.

To take a different example, if you love a relative, does it diminish your feelings in some way because other people in your family love them? I know that's an imperfect example because it's nonsexual.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If this is the way you approach you wife for intimacy, I'm surprised you ever get any at all. ;o)

lol well, I've never been married, but neither have I ever gotten complaints about this type of approach (when used occasionally).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think friendship would be enough. For example, I can imagine being in a marriage with a woman I really loved, who was also married to a good friend of mine.

Well, I agree; although I think it would be more than just the basic friendship.

But from what I understand, some of the polygamous families that are out there are put together strictly by the man; the existing wives have no say in future wives. IMO, that is just not right (although I'm not saying that it should be outlawed)

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
AM, you seem to apply this rule only when it is convenient. You called yourself a girl just a week or two ago.

Wanna bet that you can't legally marry her?

Randall
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Honey, I'm home, how about a little lovin?"

"Sorry babe, I already had sex with my other husband. Can we just watch some TV or play connect-four?"


Heck, I get that kind of response all the time, minus the bit about having already having had sex or a second husband.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wouldn't last three days in a relationship like that. These things are pretty easy to talk about, but in reality my emotions would make me miserable in that situation. And I don't really envy someone with an emotional set that would allow for this sort of arrangement.

Well, I think it's obvious that many (probably a large majority of) people would not want a mulitple relationship. There's nothing wrong with that.

But does that mean that it should be illegal for those who DO want such a relationship, as rare as it may be?

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, I think it's obvious that many (probably a large majority of) people would not want a mulitple relationship. There's nothing wrong with that.

But does that mean that it should be illegal for those who DO want such a relationship, as rare as it may be?


The living arrangemets of consenting adults, in whatever proportions, should not be illegal IMO.

The benefits bestowed under the legal status of "married" must obviously (to me) be limited SOMEHOW. I'm willing to draw the line at polygamy and beastiality, but not homosexuality. So, at least I'm not a total prude!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
lol well, I've never been married, but neither have I ever gotten complaints about this type of approach (when used occasionally).

Lemme tell you, buddy, marriage has been known to change things.

I agree that your approach might work once in a while, but most of us women are notoriously fickle in what it takes to get us in the mood. One day we like a direct approach, another day we like the romantic candlelight dinner approach. Then there's the "husband clean house and do dishes" approach (one of my favorites) and the "slip a suggestive note in her purse so she'll find it at work" approach.

None of these are guaranteed to work. Sometimes we just don't feel like it. We might do it anyway, or we might not. That's just how it is.

Interestingly, when *I'm* wanting some lovin', the same approach has worked for me nearly every time for eight years. ;-)

Andrea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Interestingly, when *I'm* wanting some lovin', the same approach has worked for me nearly every time for eight years. ;-)
Andrea

-----


Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.
-Billy Crystal
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And I thought Andrea was young!
YOU! Go to the back of the library!
And stay there until you KNOW who Rosalind Russell is!
Go! GO! GO!!!


Heh, heh. I do know about RR and Auntie Mame--I love that movie and the play on which it is based. I also enjoyed her in The Trouble with Angels.

Andrea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Interestingly, when *I'm* wanting some lovin', the same approach has worked for me nearly every time for eight years. ;-)

We males appreciate straightforward requests on this subject. Though a kiss is always appreciated.

What is not appreciated is vague hints that must be interpreted, and which are indistinguishable from simple gestures of affection. Particularly if acting on the identical but differently motivated gestures gets a rejection.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Though a kiss is always appreciated.

Yep. When DH gets a certain kind of kiss from me, he knows what I want. No words needed.

Andrea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The people who oppose these views are closeminded gigoted fundies who are against equality.

Gigoted: really, really, really bigoted.

Calling someone who is not a bigot, a bigot, doesn't make him a bigot, nor does it make you not bigoted.

redsavina
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Calling someone who is not a bigot, a bigot, doesn't make him a bigot, nor does it make you not bigoted.

Bigot. n. Someone who doesn't agree with me.

If you dig back a few months on the Retire Early board, you'll find several posts by our visitor that show this is his working definition. I'm thinking specifically of this post:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=19415862

In which he failed to see himself in LEOLO's excellent satirical post:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=19415578

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
AM, you seem to apply this rule only when it is convenient. You called yourself a girl just a week or two ago.




Ah! But that's different!
I can also call myself a klutz -- but if YOU call me one...
Duck! ;o)

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I'm willing to draw the line at polygamy and beastiality, but not homosexuality. So, at least I'm not a total prude!



I can understand objecting to beastiality on ground of humane treatment of animals, but I don't see how polygamy hurts you in the least.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Beautifully written, Uhura and a beautiful, touching story.

Thanks for sharing with us.

tuni
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<You shouldn't be marrying "girls" anyway.
They have laws against that sort of thing. ;o)>>

They need to change.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<It's OK to love your dog, just don't love your dog.>>

HA! Sometimes what starts out as a platonic friendship turns into something more. It is not something you can just turn on and off like a light switch.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Gigoted: really, really, really bigoted.

<<Calling someone who is not a bigot, a bigot, doesn't make him a bigot, nor does it make you not bigoted.

Ok, but I detect a strong hint of polygamophobia, if not beastiophobia and incestuophobia.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Bigot. n. Someone who doesn't agree with me.>>

Gussmed, you seem to enjoy using the term bigot, and relish using it as a weapon on others. You do seem to subscribe to the definition you chose above. I could dig those actual posts out, but I would rather not stoop to your bait.

In the meantime, happy trolling.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I can understand objecting to beastiality on ground of humane treatment of animals, but I don't see how polygamy hurts you in the least.

AM,

I've been thinking about this for the last few days, and I've changed my mind. As long as the polygamists didn't get some sort of aggregate benefit from having multiple spouses, like tax breaks (which would hurt me by way of increasing my own tax burden), or disproportionate monies from social services like Welfare (which, again, does hurt me), I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with legally recognizing polygamous arrangements.

But I still think it's just WRONG! Maybe I'm just jealous that I lack the emotional detachment (or capacity?) to be in a devoted, committed relationship with more than one person. :)

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
AM,

I've been thinking about this for the last few days, and I've changed my mind. As long as the polygamists didn't get some sort of aggregate benefit from having multiple spouses, like tax breaks (which would hurt me by way of increasing my own tax burden), or disproportionate monies from social services like Welfare (which, again, does hurt me), I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with legally recognizing polygamous arrangements.

But I still think it's just WRONG! Maybe I'm just jealous that I lack the emotional detachment (or capacity?) to be in a devoted, committed relationship with more than one person. :)






Well, you already pay more taxes than people with lots of kids, so you are supporting their lifestyle with your earned dollars. So I can understand your objection on this ground.

But to say that "it's just WRONG!" is, in itself, not really accurate. What you really mean is that it isn't something you would choose for yourself. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone == like murder == it's difficult to call it "wrong" unless you are applying religion to it somehow.

I agree that it isn't a lifestyle I would choose -- primarily because I like a lot of privacy and personal time and space and can't see me having much of it in a three- or four- or five-way relationship. But I think most people can think of nothing else than the SEX part of such a relationship. Their brains seem to be geared to just hone in on that one topic. It's like the religious calling the homosexual lifestyle "Wrong" even when the couples live very normal, upright, good and generous lives. All those people who say it is "Wrong" can think about is the SEX aspect of it. (So whose mind is in the gutter there? :o)

So, like you, I wouldn't really want to be IN such a relationship, but I don't necessarily consider it "Wrong" for those who do.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, like you, I wouldn't really want to be IN such a relationship, but I don't necessarily consider it "Wrong" for those who do.

Yeah, I guess I meant, "wrong for ME." But I feel like our emotions evolved around dichotomous arrangements. Maybe it's my social conditioning. No reason they can't evolve further :) Prolly too late for me tho. Gus said he hasn't experienced jealousy; I have no such luxury.

Actually, the idea of having two or more wives is not so unattractive... My limited mind just can not imagine such an arrangement working out to every spouse's benefit over the long term.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But I still think it's just WRONG! Maybe I'm just jealous that I lack the emotional detachment (or capacity?) to be in a devoted, committed relationship with more than one person. :)

You know, I think that it is this line of thought that is the basis for much of the argument against gay marriage.
Most hets can't envision themselves loving a person of the same sex; therefore, since it is not right for them, it is WRONG for everyone, and should be outlawed.

At least you've recognized that, even though it is wrong for you, that it should perhaps not be illegal as long as it doesn't adversely affect others.

David
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement