No. of Recommendations: 4
How come no one is debating the propositions? Is there another forum for that?

Opposing Prop 8, I think Apple Inc. sums it up well…

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'll vote for Prop. 8 just as soon as someone can cogently explain why two persons of the same sex should be able to marry while 3 persons of any sex can't

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No debate because one either accepts or does not accept homosexuals as deserving of equal rights.

It's one of the few really black and white social issues that we deal with (the other being abortion).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'll vote for Prop. 8 just as soon as someone can cogently explain why two persons of the same sex should be able to marry while 3 persons of any sex can't

2 is not 3, so polygamy is irrelevant, as are necromancy and bestiality.

Is something that simple really beyond your grasp?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
2 is not 3,

Thanks for the math lesson.

so polygamy is irrelevant, as are necromancy and bestiality.

Animals and dead bodies? Really? Why change the subject, nobody is arguing about consent?

So now tell me why three consenting adults shouldn't have equal rights.

Is something that simple really beyond your grasp?

Have you ever had a civil discourse with someone with which you disagreed?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Take a look at who's really supporting it, LDS whacks, sticking their noses under bedroom doors... The lies in their ads, so obvious to all... Total waste of our time, needs to be soundly defeated. Abolish bigotry.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The lies in their ads, so obvious to all...

I sure hope you are right – but I’m not as certain. I agree the ads are all lies, but I’m not sure that the average listener will take the time to figure that out. The Yes on 8 ads are pretty hard to ignore and therefore make a big impact.

I read that the polls are conducted via land lines and that so many of the 18-30 y.o. demographic don’t use land-lines and therefore are probably not being represented in the polls. I really hope this is true. The younger generation understands this is a civil rights issue.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Have you ever had a civil discourse with someone with which you disagreed?

When a hardright poster tries to equate polygamy with 2 adults getting married, the odds of civil, much less rational discussion are unlikely.

So now tell me why three consenting adults shouldn't have equal rights.

Again, it's irrelevant. Polygamy has nothing to do with denying 2 consenting adults the right to marry. You may want to pretend it is relevant as a debating tactic, but it ain't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I'll vote for Prop. 8 just as soon as someone can cogently explain why two persons of the same sex should be able to marry while 3 persons of any sex can't.


You're in luck.

Prop 8 has nothing to do with 3 folks trying to get married.

We'll put you down for a 'no' on 8.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Again, it's irrelevant. Polygamy has nothing to do with denying 2 consenting adults the right to marry. You may want to pretend it is relevant as a debating tactic, but it ain't.

Your opinions not withstanding, it is indeed relevant. If this is the civil rights issue as its been portrayed, how can civil rights be granted to two people and not three or five?


On another topic but still on subject: what rights or benefits does a marriage license grant that a civil union does not?

In California where domestic partnership has been available to same-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 has made it, like the New Jersey civil union law, equivalent to marriage in nearly every respect at the state level, though neither is recognized by the federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#California

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
On another topic but still on subject: what rights or benefits does a marriage license grant that a civil union does not?

This guy did the digging for you.

http://djskeematics.blogspot.com/2008/10/does-marriage-provi...

My voting opinion has been mixed on this issue. I agree with a traditional definition of marriage, but not at the cost of denying rights to monogamous homosexual couples that gain rather than maintain equal benefits through gay marriage. My understanding was that domestic partnership affords couples the exact same benefits that marriage provides. But, this being the hot button issue in California’s 2008 election, I figured that I should do a bit more research.

and his well-reasoned conclusion:

At the end of the day, voting no on Proposition 8 will not provide additional federal benefits to same-sex couples that want to live a married lifestyle. Instead, it will legitimize same-sex couples that view their relationships to be synonymous with marital relations - rather than a business partnership. While a California couple’s same-sex marriage won’t always be recognized in another state - it won’t be dissolved in California, just because a partner is residing in another state for some time. It doesn’t eliminate any direct benefit for heterosexual married couples - married couples will still have the same relationship and go through the same steps of marriage as they always have. Simply put, same sex couples are looking for equal treatment under the law as heterosexual couples, but as we’ve found, voting yes on Proposition 8 denies same-sex couples that want to declare marriage, rights. That’s something I cannot agree with.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
At the end of the day, voting no on Proposition 8 will not provide additional federal benefits to same-sex couples that want to live a married lifestyle.

I see, so this is a civil rights issue with no civil rights in question. Clear as mud.

Still waiting for an answer to my original question....

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You received your answer already.

Let me add to it: If you want 3 or 5 or more people to have the same rights, and if you are a California resident, please, use your political rights. Take the time to get the signatures and get your notion onto the next ballot.

We're very fair like that out here.

Obviously.


Afterall, we let some close-minded bigots get Prop 8 before the voters, didn't we?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
still waiting for an answer to my original question....

You'll be waiting forever if you cannot comprehend that 3 is not 2.

It's that simple.

Maybe if it's presented a little slower for you... here...

3 is not 2

sano
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You received your answer already.

No. What I received is a tautology. 2 is not 3 is about as logically valuable to this argument as saying a man is not a bride.

Afterall, we let some close-minded bigots get Prop 8 before the voters, didn't we?

Closed-minded? I'm the one asking questions, I'm the one willing to change my vote, I'm the whose only disparaging comment was to question sano's ability to hold a civil debate. And for my trouble I get called closed-minded and a bigot, I get my residency questioned, my intelligence insulted.

I am not the one dogmatically clinging to my position as if it were beyond examination.

Convince me and I'll vote no, happily.

It’s a simple question. If Prop 8 does not pass, what is to prevent a "wacko LDSer" (as weco misidentifies the measure's supporters) from marching his two girlfriends down to Superior Court and filing suit alleging their civil rights were violated because the county clerk would not grant the three of them a marriage license?

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm the one willing to change my vote

I'm calling BS.

The question you ask is based on the premise that someone be able to prove to you how 3 is equal to 2.

To wit, if no one can prove that 3 = 2, then you feel homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

Well, you win. 3 does not = 2, so cast yer yes vote and be done with it.

what is to prevent a "wacko LDSer" from marching his two girlfriends down to Superior Court and filing suit alleging their civil rights were violated because the county clerk would not grant the three of them a marriage license?

He can do that now. It has nothing to do with Prop. 8. He can do it if Prop 8 passes. He can do it Prop 8 fails.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It has nothing to do with Prop. 8. He can do it if Prop 8 passes.

No he cannot, at least he cannot with any legal standing. Prop 8 amends the state constitution to define marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. If it fails, what is to prevent a court from finding a marriage can exist between a man and a woman and a woman based on the same civil rights as those demanded by same sex couples? That being 'cuz they want to.

Well, you win.

I'm not trying to win, just understand.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So now tell me why three consenting adults shouldn't have equal rights.

Is something that simple really beyond your grasp?

Have you ever had a civil discourse with someone with which you disagreed?


Please explain what's different between banning marriages between two people of the same sex, and banning marriages between people of different races?

6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

I see, so this is a civil rights issue with no civil rights in question. Clear as mud.

Still waiting for an answer to my original question....


So, if there were also an amendment on the table to permit polygamy, then you would refuse to vote for an amendment to ban gay marriage?

I think you're lying.

6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Please explain what's different between banning marriages between two people of the same sex, and banning marriages between people of different races?

Off hand, I can think of none.

So, if there were also an amendment on the table to permit polygamy, then you would refuse to vote for an amendment to ban gay marriage?

No. I'm not inclined to allow polygamy either. But at least I'm consistent. I'm just trying to get others to explain to me why same sex marriage should be allowed while polygamy should not. To allow one but not the other on the grounds that 2 is not 3 seems illogical and disingenuous.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Please explain what's different between banning marriages between two people of the same sex, and banning marriages between people of different races?

Been racking my brains, no jokes please, and the best answer I can devise is that until the Loving v. Virginia decision, banning interracial marriage was clearly a civil rights issue because it was a flat denial of the benefits of marriage in violation of the equal protection clause. However, as I have shown in this thread, same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue because the granting of a marriage license would bestow no further benefits or rights that can not be granted through civil unions or domestic partnerships.

So, now that we have civil unions and domestic partnerships, would it now be permissible to ban interracial marriage? Of course not.

I think you're lying.

Nope. In the end I'll probably vote no even though my original question has not been satisfactorily answered. After all, why should I care if two (or even three) homosexuals decide they want to enter wedded bliss? It’s been far too long the gay community has escaped the curse of divorce proceedings and alimony.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No he cannot, at least he cannot with any legal standing.

In other words, he can still try, just like now.

Same same
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Okay... I found yer answer.....

Picture a boxing match with 3 fighters in the ring.....

Our laws with respect to inheritance, parental rights, marital property, insurance, and much more, are structured to deal with just two contestants.

Allowing plural marriage creates a legal situation which the law is not designed (and possibly not equipped) to handle.

Divorces, insurance, deaths, unemployment, disability would be horrendously complicated by the introduction of the third marital partner.

Keeping the number of contestants at two insures that employers, insurers, and other parties, are not subjected to an unknown number of marital claimants/contestants/combatants.

Imagine a guy with 5 spouses gets killed on the job. His 5 spouses, each of whom has multiple children, want to go their own ways, and each claims sole right to his estate......

How about some of those biblical characters with hundreds of wives and thousands of children... LOL

2 parties. No blindsiding by a 3rd party.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
a 2 party suit is the standard. Gingrich vs Gingrich, no problemo.

a 3 way divorce. bush vs pelosi-bush vs palin-bush .... problemo grande.

comprende?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Our laws with respect to inheritance, parental rights, marital property, insurance, and much more, are structured to deal with just two contestants.

Do you mean to tell me that throughout the history of this fine state that nobody has died with three and only three heirs? Are the calculators in this state incapable of dividing by three?

Divorces, insurance, deaths, unemployment, disability would be horrendously complicated by the introduction of the third marital partner.

Boot strapping. The same could be said of allowing a same sex marital partner.

Imagine a guy with 5 spouses gets killed on the job. His 5 spouses, each of whom has multiple children, want to go their own ways, and each claims sole right to his estate......

OK, x/5, I don't see the problem here. Look, its not like some guy's leading a double life with two families unaware of each other's existence. We're talking about consenting adults who know exactly what their getting into and the rules of the game.

2 parties. No blindsiding by a 3rd party.

Weak, try again.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
a 2 party suit is the standard.

Well that's all Prop. 8 wants to do, maintain the standard of hetero-marriage. I thought you were against Prop. 8?

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
a 2 party suit is the standard

Well that's all Prop. 8 wants to do, maintain the standard of hetero-marriage. I thought you were against Prop. 8?.


No, Prop 8 seeks to prevent homosexuals from the having rights unde the law. It's about sex.

You are argueing quantity, not gender.

It's a gender issue, not a quantity issue.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, Prop 8 seeks to prevent homosexuals from the having rights unde the law.

This again. What rights can be bestowed through a marriage license that can not be obtained through a domestic partnership or civil union?

You are argueing quantity, not gender.

No. I'm arguing for people to recognize the law of unintended consequences.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your questions have been answered. For whatever reason, you refuse to acknowledge substantial answers.

No. I'm arguing for people to recognize the law of unintended consequences.

Kinda of a slippery slope fear guy, eh? Then Palin's yer gal and yes on 8 is your logical choice.


Bye.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Been racking my brains, no jokes please, and the best answer I can devise is that until the Loving v. Virginia decision, banning interracial marriage was clearly a civil rights issue because it was a flat denial of the benefits of marriage in violation of the equal protection clause. However, as I have shown in this thread, same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue because the granting of a marriage license would bestow no further benefits or rights that can not be granted through civil unions or domestic partnerships.


Would you support a constitutional amendment stating that interracial couples can enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships, but not marriage?

6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Would you support a constitutional amendment stating that interracial couples can enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships, but not marriage?

Let me start by saying that I do not oppose gay marriage--here in OR I voted against a ban on gay marriage a few years back.

But this particular argument is without merit because marriage has always been about a man and a woman and interracial couples consist of a man and a woman while gay couples do not.

I don't think gov't should be involved in marriage at all. Let's have contracts that bestow all the rights and privileges of marriage and let anyone who wants to be contracted to someone else enter into them. Leave marriage to the religious institutions. If you want to get married, sign the contract to get the legal benefits and then go to your synagogue or ashram to fulfill the requirements of your particular mythology.

This would be difficult to implement only when it comes to taxation where we find a Married Filing Jointly status. I suppose this could be changed to Contracted Filing Jointly. How it would work with three or more people contracted to each other, I don't know. And why shouldn't three or more people be voluntarily contracted to each other? If we stop calling it marriage, it might become easier to talk about.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Would you support a constitutional amendment stating that interracial couples can enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships, but not marriage?

I anticipated this line and have previously responded in the post you've quoted:

"So, now that we have civil unions and domestic partnerships, would it now be permissible to ban interracial marriage? Of course not."

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=27139453
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And why shouldn't three or more people be voluntarily contracted to each other? If we stop calling it marriage, it might become easier to talk about.

People voluntarily enter contracts with numerous people all the time. The difference with a "marriage" is that there are usually kids that stand to suffer from complicated divorces. It's hard enough for kids in traditional marriage dissolutions. A 3, 4, 5, 6 way battle would be a huge problem for the family court system.

This is not to say it couldn't be done... eskimo and american indians all did it. lots of cultures still practice some sort of polygamy... but for legal reasons, it would be horribly complicated and much more expensive than traditional divorces IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. We can't just say "I divorce you" 3 times. We gotta go throught the grist mill of Dewey Cheatem and Howe.

It's pretty simple to determine who did what in a 2 person marriage. Either he's lying or she's lying. Not so simple when there are many spouses all pointing the finger in a diffferent direction.

Social Security, disabiliity benefits, workmans comp for 32 wives? I don't think so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Your questions have been answered. For whatever reason, you refuse to acknowledge substantial answers.

You mean this:
At the end of the day, voting no on Proposition 8 will not provide additional federal benefits to same-sex couples that want to live a married lifestyle. Instead, it will legitimize same-sex couples that view their relationships to be synonymous with marital relations - rather than a business partnership. While a California couple’s same-sex marriage won’t always be recognized in another state - it won’t be dissolved in California, just because a partner is residing in another state for some time. It doesn’t eliminate any direct benefit for heterosexual married couples - married couples will still have the same relationship and go through the same steps of marriage as they always have. Simply put, same sex couples are looking for equal treatment under the law as heterosexual couples, but as we’ve found, voting yes on Proposition 8 denies same-sex couples that want to declare marriage, rights. That’s something I cannot agree with.

Bolded part seems to support my position.

Let's go to the link.

1) “To register as domestic partners, both persons must be at least 18 years old and share a residence. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 297(b)(1), (4).) Marriage has no cohabitation requirement and persons younger than 18 can be married so long as they get a court order. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 302, 303.)”

We withhold many rights from minors. Why should domestic partnerships or marriage be any different?

2) “Establishing domestic partnership is much easier than marriage.” According to the article, there are more steps that must be taken to file a marriage license. Domestic partnership registration requires that “...a couple need only file a “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” with the secretary of state, who adds it to a statewide database. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 298.5(a), (b).)” Further, through the “putative spouse” doctrine, marriages that are technically void can still be recognized as “marriages” if couples are in good faith agreement that they are indeed married. This is not possible in the case of domestic partnership.

Please find the last case where "putative spouse" was invoked. 1952?

3) Domestic partners must share a residence and be at least 18 years old - married couples do not have this requirement.

A cohabitation requirement? Easily fixed.

4) It’s more difficult to get a divorce than end a domestic partnership. Married couples have a length of time that they must reside in California before divorcing. Domestic partners can end the partnership outside of California with no time requirement. Further, married couples must stand before a judge in court to be divorced - domestic partnership can be ended with a joint document sent to the Secretary of State.

Advantage goes to domestic partnerships.

5) Domestic partnership information is public information, marriage licenses and certificates can be “hidden” from public view.

Hidden? In quotes and no citation. Doubtful.

6) Heterosexual couples cannot be domestic partners unless they are age 62 or older (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 297(b)(5)(A),(B).). The article states that this preserves single status social security benefits for each member of the domestic partnership - which is not preserved by marriage.

Another advantage to domestic parnerships.

Seems to me the rights granted under DP outweigh the rights granted from a marriage license. Easier to enter, easier to exit. Why would anyone choose marriage over a DP?

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"So, now that we have civil unions and domestic partnerships, would it now be permissible to ban interracial marriage? Of course not."

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=27139453


I'm sorry but why then is it permissible to ban gay marriage? I'm not able to follow your logic.

6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm sorry but why then is it permissible to ban gay marriage?

I never said it was permissible. All I've been asking is why is it permissible to ban polygamy?

If we're going to expand the definition of marraige so that it can exist between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, why not a man a woman and another woman?

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The difference with a "marriage" is that there are usually kids that stand to suffer from complicated divorces.

Trauma to the kids? Do you really want to go down that road?

Imagine yourself as a 13 year old. What would you rather do; 1) explain to your friends that one of your dad's wives is divorcing him or 2) explain to your friends why you have two dads.

It's pretty simple to determine who did what in a 2 person marriage. Either he's lying or she's lying.

Actually, adding a third party to provide corroboration would make these situations much simpler.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'll vote for Prop. 8 just as soon as someone can cogently explain why two persons of the same sex should be able to marry while 3 persons of any sex can't
...
So now tell me why three consenting adults shouldn't have equal rights.
...
If we're going to expand the definition of marraige so that it can exist between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, why not a man a woman and another woman?



1. Two persons of opposite sex can get a marriage license.

2. Two persons of same sex can not get a marriage license (if Prop 8 passes).

The difference between the above two is sexual orientation.

The factor determining the ability to get a marriage license should not be sexual orientation, just as race and religion aren't.

There is no slippery slope to polygamy here, as the argument supporting same-sex and opposite-sex marriage is different from the argument supporting polygamy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
1. Two persons of opposite sex can get a marriage license.

2. Two persons of same sex can not get a marriage license (if Prop 8 passes).

The difference between the above two is sexual orientation.


Granted.

...the argument supporting same-sex and opposite-sex marriage is different from the argument supporting polygamy.

"Different" how so? How are any two people more deserving of the right to marry than any three?

Why will nobody here just admit that polygamy is an insult to the sensibilities?

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...the argument supporting same-sex and opposite-sex marriage is different from the argument supporting polygamy.


"Different" how so?



Different because for the former the state would be deciding to whom to issue its marriage license based on sexual orientation, and for the latter that decision would be based on number.

Sexual orientation, or number. Two different arguments.

How are any two people more deserving of the right to marry than any three?

They may or may not be, but still the arguments supporting the two positions are different.

Any couple should be able to marry, according to the state, not just certain couples based sexual orientation.

We are all free and welcome to make an argument to the legislature to allow polygamy, but such request isn't predicated on sexual orientation.

*****

The same-sex couple has an argument about equality; if you're going to allow some couples to marry, then allow all couples to marry.

I'm not sure how a polygamist would argue equality? If you're going to allow a person to marry, then that person should be allowed to marry any number of other persons?

The second just doesn't seem to have the same claim on equality as the first.

The essence of sexual orientation is different, it seems to me, from that what makes a person want to marry multiple others.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
All I've been asking is why is it permissible to ban polygamy?

And it has been amply explained that polygamy is irrelevant to Proposition 8. It is a quantity issue.

8 is not about quantity. It's about discrimination based on gender.

That you would predicate your vote on an irrelevant issue does not speak well for your ability to think critically.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The same-sex couple has an argument about equality; if you're going to allow some couples to marry, then allow all couples to marry.

You're late to the thread so I'll back up a bit.

What is it about a marriage license that bestows equality upon a same sex couple that can't be had by other means, specifically a domestic partnership or civil union?

I'm not sure how a polygamist would argue equality?

They shouldn't have to. The burden is on those who oppose polygamy to prove why they are undeserving of equal treatment.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And it has been amply explained that polygamy is irrelevant to Proposition 8. It is a quantity issue.

The text of Prop. 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.


http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-...

"Only a man and a woman" necessarily excludes polygamy as well as same sex marriage, therefore it is relevant.

It's about discrimination based on gender.

Gender? Perhaps you mean sexual orientation? And as I've amply explained there is no issue of discrimination.
Marriage license: domestic partnership same same

That you would predicate your vote on an irrelevant issue does not speak well for your ability to think critically.

I know its been 42 posts in this thread and counting but if you can't expend the energy to read each one perhaps you should stay in the shallow end.

"Nope. In the end I'll probably vote no even though my original question has not been satisfactorily answered. After all, why should I care if two (or even three) homosexuals decide they want to enter wedded bliss? It’s been far too long the gay community has escaped the curse of divorce proceedings and alimony."

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=27139453

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I never said it was permissible. All I've been asking is why is it permissible to ban polygamy?

If we're going to expand the definition of marraige so that it can exist between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, why not a man a woman and another woman?


Or, as you might have said forty years ago...if we're going to expand the definition of marriage so that it can exist between a white man and a black woman or a black man and a white woman, why not a man and another man?

Your argument is disingenous...by that I mean you're lying about what your concern is. You are, I think, just bigoted. It would make the discussion much easier to follow if you were straightforward about that.

6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why will nobody here just admit that polygamy is an insult to the sensibilities?

Because if polygamy were really your issue, you would be suggesting a different amendment rather than supporting the one currently up before us.

Just be honest...why is that so difficult for you? Are you ashamed?

6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Your argument is disingenous...by that I mean you're lying about what your concern is.

Oh no, I've been found out.

You are, I think, just bigoted.

Wrong. I've been trying to expose your, and other's, bigotry against polygamists. You might have been tipped off by my plea for others to admit polygamy insults their sensibilities.

So now, to conclude this little melodrama, same sex marriage proponents can either admit polygamists have the same right to marriage as homosexuals or risk being labeled bigots and hypocrites.

It would make the discussion much easier to follow if you were straightforward about that.

They said the same thing about Socrates, but then if he followed their advice Western culture wouldn't be nearly as enlightened.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is it about a marriage license that bestows equality upon a same sex couple that can't be had by other means,

It seems to me that question is backwards. If the state offers marriage to couples, then it should do so to all couples equally without regard to such factors as race or sexual orientation.


I'm not sure how a polygamist would argue equality?

They shouldn't have to. The burden is on those who oppose polygamy to prove why they are undeserving of equal treatment.


Then why would the polygamist vote for an amendment to exclude same-sex couples from marriage on the basis that there's not some other provision for multiple spouses?

Without opposing polygamy, a person can still vote against Prop 8.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If the state offers marriage to people, then it should do so to all people equally without regard to such factors as race or sexual orientation or number.

FTFY

Without opposing polygamy, a person can still vote against Prop 8.

True. But can a person oppose both polygamy and Prop. 8 and remain logically consistent?

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So now, to conclude this little melodrama, same sex marriage proponents can either admit polygamists have the same right to marriage as homosexuals or risk being labeled bigots and hypocrites.

That line of reasoning would have us all labeled hypocrite/bigot for opposing the marriage of people and animals.

Sorry bubba.

If your concern is polygamy, fine. If your issue is same sex marriage, fine...

...but the two issues are still unrelated, no matter how much you protest otherwise.

one concerns gender, the other concerns quantity.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Without opposing polygamy, a person can still vote against Prop 8.

Without even considering polygamy, one can vote either way on 8.

It's irrelevant.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But can a person oppose both polygamy and Prop. 8 and remain logically consistent?

For the purposes of voting on Prop 8, it just doesn't matter.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Without opposing polygamy, a person can still vote against Prop 8.


Without even considering polygamy, one can vote either way on 8.

It's irrelevant.



You and I know it's irrelevant, but RustyMath posits that a polygamist should vote yes on 8 so that discrimination is magnified.

In other words, vote yes on 8 out of spite.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You and I know it's irrelevant, but RustyMath posits that a polygamist should vote yes on 8 so that discrimination is magnified.

I never said such a thing.

Why would a polygamist want to magnify discrimination if he's the one being discriminated against? In fact, a polygamist would vote no on 8 knowing that a narrow definition of marriage would further restrict his chosen lifestyle.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
but RustyMath posits that a polygamist should vote yes on 8 so that discrimination is magnified.

I never said such a thing.



When you said,

I'll vote for Prop. 8 just as soon as someone can cogently explain why two persons of the same sex should be able to marry while 3 persons of any sex can't
...
I'm the one willing to change my vote


and assuming you meant to say I'll vote against Prop 8, it seems your inclination is to vote for 8 unless there was also a proposal to provide for multiple spouses.

I'll also assume you feel folks who want multiple spouses are being unreasonably and unequally discriminated against (if you don't feel that way, then maybe I've really missed your point in this thread).

Same-sex couples can marry now, but you'd specifically take away that right, seemingly on the basis that multiple spouses isn't allowed. That's where the "magnify the discrimination" comment comes from.

*************

In fact, a polygamist would vote no on 8 knowing that a narrow definition of marriage would further restrict his chosen lifestyle.

Chosen lifestyle?

You might have just answered your own question (re same-sex marriage vs polygamy), as factors such as race and sexual orientation aren't "chosen lifestyles."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In fact, a polygamist would vote no on 8 knowing that a narrow definition of marriage would further restrict his chosen lifestyle.

Chosen lifestyle?

You might have just answered your own question (re same-sex marriage vs polygamy), as factors such as race and sexual orientation aren't "chosen lifestyles."


In a thread this long it's easy to miss the message of a poster such as Rusty who apparently thinks his sophistry is pretty clever stuff.... he did suggest, illogically, that he won't vote Yes/8 until someone can prove how an irrelevant issue is relevant, and that can't be done.

In Rusty's defense, "chosen lifestyle" does, in fact refer to polygamy. Rusty understands that for many people sexual orientation is no more a choice than is race.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
and assuming you meant to say I'll vote against Prop 8,[correct, my bad] it seems your inclination is to vote for 8 unless there was also a proposal to provide for multiple spouses.

It was never my intent to advocate for polygamy.

Let me expand on what I thought would be the conclusion to this argument some posts ago. Many of the arguments against Prop. 8 point to the bigotry of 8's proponents as reason to defeat it. And they are correct. PROP 8 IS INHERENTLY DICRIMINATORY AND ITS PROPONENTS ARE BIGOTED. However, it has been my intent all along to point out that people who are in favor of same sex marriage yet still seek to prohibit polygamy are equally bigoted and their policies just as discriminatory.

So now the pro-same sex/anti-polygamy crowd has one of two choices; either accept polygamy as an unintended but necessary consequence of 8's defeat, or, finding their bigotry to be valid, STFU about the bigotry of others.

As for me, I could not care less what goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. If you can get a dog to say "I do" and make its mark on a marriage license, more power to ya. But what I can't stand is people pointing out the splinter in someone else's eye when they themselves have a face full of lumber.

Rusty

Just one more comment:

You might have just answered your own question (re same-sex marriage vs polygamy), as factors such as race and sexual orientation aren't "chosen lifestyles."

You mean that sexual orientation is not a choice, that it is caused by physiological factors such as genetics or brain chemistry? Wouldn't that allow that some day medical science may find a way to "correct" it through genetic engineering or pharmacology?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You might have just answered your own question (re same-sex marriage vs polygamy), as factors such as race and sexual orientation aren't "chosen lifestyles."

Wouldn't that allow that some day medical science may find a way to "correct" it through genetic engineering or pharmacology?



"correct" ?

Vas is das?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
PROP 8 IS INHERENTLY DICRIMINATORY AND ITS PROPONENTS ARE BIGOTED. However, it has been my intent all along to point out that people who are in favor of same sex marriage yet still seek to prohibit polygamy are equally bigoted and their policies just as discriminatory.


1. Given that the state allows opposite-sex couples to marry, in what way is proscribing same-sex couples from marriage discriminatory?

2. In what way is proscribing multiple spouses discriminatory?



You mean that sexual orientation is not a choice

Correct.

that it is caused by physiological factors such as genetics or brain chemistry? Wouldn't that allow that some day medical science may find a way to "correct" it through genetic engineering or pharmacology?

Logical fallacy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
....wouldn't that allow that some day medical science may find a way to "correct" it ......?

....Logical fallacy.


It always amused me the way an experienced debater can skew a subject, as Rusty unsuccessfully atttempted (I might vote for x if you can prove y).

Classic examples in "Thank You for Not Smoking":

Kid #3: My Mommy says smoking kills.
Nick Naylor: Oh, is your Mommy a doctor?
Kid #3: No.
Nick Naylor: A scientific researcher of some kind?
Kid #3: No.
Nick Naylor: Well then she's hardly a credible expert, is she?


and:

Nick Naylor (Father): That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.
Joey Naylor (12 yr old Son): ...so what happens when you're wrong?
Nick Naylor: -Whoa, Joey I'm never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But you can't always be right...
Nick Naylor: -Well if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong?
Nick Naylor: -OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say:
Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other.
Nick Naylor: -Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it?
Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick Naylor: Well I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty.
Joey Naylor: But that's not what we're talking about
Nick Naylor: -Ah! But that's what I'm talking about.
Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best...
Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Classic examples in "Thank You for Not Smoking":

I'm thinking more along the lines of this:
Socratic Questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems.

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

So now tell me why three consenting adults shouldn't have equal rights.
...
On another topic but still on subject: what rights or benefits does a marriage license grant that a civil union does not?
...
It’s a simple question. If Prop 8 does not pass, what is to prevent a "wacko LDSer" (as weco misidentifies the measure's supporters) from marching his two girlfriends down to Superior Court and filing suit alleging their civil rights were violated because the county clerk would not grant the three of them a marriage license?
...
If it fails, what is to prevent a court from finding a marriage can exist between a man and a woman and a woman based on the same civil rights as those demanded by same sex couples?
...
I'm just trying to get others to explain to me why same sex marriage should be allowed while polygamy should not.
...
What rights can be bestowed through a marriage license that can not be obtained through a domestic partnership or civil union?
...
Seems to me the rights granted under DP outweigh the rights granted from a marriage license. Easier to enter, easier to exit. Why would anyone choose marriage over a DP?
...
If we're going to expand the definition of marraige so that it can exist between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, why not a man a woman and another woman?
...
"Different" how so? How are any two people more deserving of the right to marry than any three?
...
Why will nobody here just admit that polygamy is an insult to the sensibilities?
...
What is it about a marriage license that bestows equality upon a same sex couple that can't be had by other means, specifically a domestic partnership or civil union?

and so on.

I must have touched a nerve because nobody has yet to address this:
However, it has been my intent all along to point out that people who are in favor of same sex marriage yet still seek to prohibit polygamy are equally bigoted and their policies just as discriminatory.

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I must have touched a nerve because nobody has yet to address this:
However, it has been my intent all along to point out that people who are in favor of same sex marriage yet still seek to prohibit polygamy are equally bigoted and their policies just as discriminatory.


Nope. No nerve touched. Just tired of pointing out the obvious, only to find you are either unwilling or incapable of understanding.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I must have touched a nerve because nobody has yet to address this:
However, it has been my intent all along to point out that people who are in favor of same sex marriage yet still seek to prohibit polygamy are equally bigoted and their policies just as discriminatory.



How could it have touched a nerve? Prohibiting polygamy wasn't even on my radar.

However, denying equality to some couples is on the radar because it's on the ballot next week, and your first post in this thread seemed to indicate you might vote in favor of the discrimination.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I'm thinking more along the lines of this:
Socratic Questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems.


For the Socratic method to work, you have to make logical connections between premises, which you were unable to do. That's why you didn't get anywhere with your audience here.

But I'm sure you think it's just because we're dense.

6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The problem here is in trying to compare something that is a personal attribute (sexual orientation) to something that is not a personal attribute (# of people wishing to enter into a marriage).

The argument goes that personal attributes are considered to be things that cannot be changed and are there from birth and therefore a person should be protected from being discriminated against because of them.

Marriage = civil union gets into "separate but equal" territory when you consider sexual orientation to be a special protected attribute like gender and race. Since "separate but equal" is unconstitutional, forcing only certain people settle for a civil union with no option of marriage is bad.

That's the logical argument for same-sex marriage.

Number of people is not a personal attribute (except for conjoined twins or something), so arguing for polygamy would have to be done in a completely different way. While it's true that being against polygamy is a form of bigotry, unfortunately, I haven't a clue what logic an argument for polygamy would have to follow.
Print the post Back To Top