Gay Marriage and the law of unintended consequences...

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The legislature is free to decide that a binary partnering union, presumably for life and for the purpose of creating nuclear families, shall have benefits while a non-binary union shall not. And, this is exactly how this will play out in every state. Believe me, I had to research the heck outta this to answer the legislative committees' questions in Vermont. They asked the same thing.

You've got to admit this will weaken significantly the position of anyone trying to limit the spread of what defines a "nuclear family". According to wordreference.com it's "a primary social unit consisting of parents and their offspring". Seems to either be narrow or broad, depending on how you define "parents". If two women with their children are a nuclear family then three women with their children are also one, there is no difference that's as significant as the change from 'man-wife' to 'two parntners'. We're in the process of leaping the big hurdle, everything afterward is stepping over a stick on the ground.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: On the topic of polygamy, the US busted up the Mormon church and seized all its property until it promised to forego polygamy. The Supreme Court directly attacked the practice, calling it "pernicious" "repugnant" and a slew of other things.

How far do you think gay unions would have gotten in those days? Do you honestly believe the words used would have been any different? I don't think so myself, that was a different America.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The requirements for marriage can be freely set so long as it does not offend the constitution. Blood tests, prohibitations on consanguinity, and other requirements may be set, but the legislature could also require the couple live together for 9mos/yr or that they be a certain age, or a bunch of other things. What the legislature cannot do is dole out legal benefits to one couple while not doling them out to another couple on the sole basis of the couple's gender makeup. What that does is fail to provide the "equal protections" of the law to all people regardless of gender.

Shouldn't that be "regardless of sexual orientation". It's not gender but orientation that is historically limiting their access to benefits. I guess I don't see this as a gender issue (enlighten me if I wrong here), And if that's true, isn't polygamy also a "sexual orientation".

I understand that the requirements for marriage can be freely set... but by what standard are they determined? The court SEEMS to have said that traditional moral standards cannot be used to set those requirements. Once we jump to modern relative morality then polygamy is just as "right" as homosexualy.

The reason I'm harping on the polygamy thing is because it's one area where the silliness of moral relativism can be seen. Gay is good, polygamy is bad? That's doesn't make sense to me, they're both neither good or bad by the modern yardstick, they simply ARE. Throw away the moral framework that repudiated polygamy in the past and there's no foundation upon which to repudiate it today.

[Timber Loftis]

I respond more substantively later when I have time.

In the meantime, let me remind you that polygamy as it exists in this nation is pernicious. At least, every example I have seen is pernicious. I've seen a few different nightly news shows where they looked at polygamous families. In every instance I've seen, there is a patriach (meaning: dominant man, i.e. the ultimate decision-maker and boss) at the center of the family who has several wives. In every instance I've seen, this patriarch takes daughters of his wives to wife, and often at an early age (13 to 15). Point me to an example that does not follow this model, and I'll demur, but I have not seen such an example.

By modern standards, I think a man dominating submissive women and marrying his daughters when they are not yet of the age of consent is "pernicious."

Not addressing your philosophical/political question, I realize, but a little "reality check" is often in order when we're discussing things that hypothetically aren't bad but in practice are.

[Maelakin]

I believe I brought this up before in another thread, but it also pertains to this thread.

Marriage in the eyes of the law is a business merger, in essence, between two people. Unless a contractual agreement is made before the union, all possessions between the pair are considered mutual holdings. In addition, each party is able to make decisions pertaining to the other party’s well being. Benefits are also bestowed upon the pair as a result of this union. For example, health insurance benefits now cover the other party.

The above illustrates why polygamy is not at all related, or even in line, with a gay marriage. When you increase the number of individuals contained within the union, you also increase the monetary cost to third parties. Insurances companies, for example, now have to cover three individuals, if one additional party was involved, instead of the normal two individuals. By legalizing polygamy, you also institute a reorganization of most medical and benefit packages intrinsically tied into every company.

Marriage overall is an outdated practice. All benefits associated with marriage should be removed and each person should act as their own party, much like Timber stated. If people still want to get married, they can understand it is for no reason other than the symbolism it presents. There is no sanctimony in marriage anymore.

Attempting to draw a correlation between gay marriage and polygamy may at first glance seem easy, but once you realize marriage is nothing like it once was and is a business venture, it completely changes the outlook. In effect, by having multiple wives/husbands, you are stealing from companies who have, because of the laws, established marriage to include two parties…no more.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I respond more substantively later when I have time. In the meantime, let me remind you that polygamy as it exists in this nation is pernicious. At least, every example I have seen is pernicious. I've seen a few different nightly news shows where they looked at polygamous families. In every instance I've seen, there is a patriach (meaning: dominant man, i.e. the ultimate decision-maker and boss) at the center of the family who has several wives. In every instance I've seen, this patriarch takes daughters of his wives to wife, and often at an early age (13 to 15). Point me to an example that does not follow this model, and I'll demur, but I have not seen such an example. By modern standards, I think a man dominating submissive women and marrying his daughters when they are not yet of the age of consent is "pernicious." Not addressing your philosophical/political question, I realize, but a little "reality check" is often in order when we're discussing things that hypothetically aren't bad but in practice are.

Granted... and I too have never seen a US application of this sort of arrangement that has not been problematic. I would suggest that the fact that it's illegal in the US might be a causal factor in this though. Polygamy has and is used in other cultures worldwide (arab comes to mind), and based on it's longevity it appears to be somewhat workable. If track records are used as a basis for decision making I'd suggest that polygamy has a more successful historical record worldwide than homosexual relationships (I do not take this as proving anything, simply that US occurances of Polygamy may not be indicative of its viability given the illegal nature of the activity in the US). Further, I'll accept that polygamy is hypothetical in the US but since it is legal and applied elsewhere today I would say that it's not at all hypothetical as a potential form of a "nuclear family" (although I personally think you'd have to be crazy to try it).

[ 12-03-2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Maelakin: I believe I brought this up before in another thread, but it also pertains to this thread. Marriage in the eyes of the law is a business merger, in essence, between two people. Unless a contractual agreement is made before the union, all possessions between the pair are considered mutual holdings. In addition, each party is able to make decisions pertaining to the other party’s well being. Benefits are also bestowed upon the pair as a result of this union. For example, health insurance benefits now cover the other party. The above illustrates why polygamy is not at all related, or even in line, with a gay marriage. When you increase the number of individuals contained within the union, you also increase the monetary cost to third parties. Insurances companies, for example, now have to cover three individuals, if one additional party was involved, instead of the normal two individuals. By legalizing polygamy, you also institute a reorganization of most medical and benefit packages intrinsically tied into every company. Marriage overall is an outdated practice. All benefits associated with marriage should be removed and each person should act as their own party, much like Timber stated. If people still want to get married, they can understand it is for no reason other than the symbolism it presents. There is no sanctimony in marriage anymore. Attempting to draw a correlation between gay marriage and polygamy may at first glance seem easy, but once you realize marriage is nothing like it once was and is a business venture, it completely changes the outlook. In effect, by having multiple wives/husbands, you are stealing from companies who have, because of the laws, established marriage to include two parties…no more.

Interesting way of looking at the issue, I'll have to think about it. I would however disagree that there is no sanctimony in marriage anymore, I think that you get out of it what you put in... irregardless of your sexual orientation. Long term relationships are darn tough, and as Night Stalker acidicaly pointed out, too many people out there cut and run whenever things don't go their way. I think this is why I overall support the idea of Gay Unions, whatever the name... if they're willing to stick with eachother for the long term they deserve the rights that married couples have. It worries me a little (I wonder when the fire and brimstone are going to start falling), but sexual preference just doesn't seem like a good reason to discriminate against anyone. (of course that won't keep me from arguing the other side... because what would life be without a good argument on occasion).

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thoran: I would however disagree that there is no sanctimony in marriage anymore, I think that you get out of it what you put in... irregardless of your sexual orientation. Long term relationships are darn tough, and as Night Stalker acidicaly pointed out, too many people out there cut and run whenever things don't go their way. I think this is why I overall support the idea of Gay Unions, whatever the name... if they're willing to stick with eachother for the long term they deserve the rights that married couples have.

I agree with your notions, and I suspect Maelakin does as well.

However, his point about sanctimony is about LEGAL sanctimony. There is no legal sanctimony in it, and likely hasn't been for a long time -- perhaps since the Church of England was created to allow a divorce. The very problems you mention, such as the willingness to "cut and run," are permitted under the law, and are the very reason there is no legal sanctimony in a marriage.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: How do you add 2+2 and get poppycock?

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]
First you must divide bollocks by bull-hocky. Add moralistic nonsense and stir in some command and control. Then 2+2= poppycock.

Or, alternately, the same way arithmaticians cure constipation...by working it out with a pencil. [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Or, alternately, the same way arithmaticians cure constipation...by working it out with a pencil. [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

that's about the funniest thing i've heard all week. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]


edit: is the result a natural log? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[ 12-04-2003, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: sultan ]

[Maelakin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Thoran: I would however disagree that there is no sanctimony in marriage anymore, I think that you get out of it what you put in... irregardless of your sexual orientation. Long term relationships are darn tough, and as Night Stalker acidicaly pointed out, too many people out there cut and run whenever things don't go their way. I think this is why I overall support the idea of Gay Unions, whatever the name... if they're willing to stick with eachother for the long term they deserve the rights that married couples have.

I agree with your notions, and I suspect Maelakin does as well.

However, his point about sanctimony is about LEGAL sanctimony. There is no legal sanctimony in it, and likely hasn't been for a long time -- perhaps since the Church of England was created to allow a divorce. The very problems you mention, such as the willingness to "cut and run," are permitted under the law, and are the very reason there is no legal sanctimony in a marriage. [/QUOTE]Timber’s suspicions are correct.

I would agree that you only get out what you put in to the relationship; however, in today’s day and age, it is increasingly difficult to find someone that will live by marriage vows that are taken when they are married. I’m pretty sure everyone can agree with me here.

Honestly, they should just abolish the concept of marriage legally. It can remain a part of the religious sects, and it can remain as a token for those who wish, but it should not have any legal impact on people’s lives. In doing so, the benefits associated with marriage will be removed to an extent, but they are easily reworked in a new format.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: How do you add 2+2 and get poppycock?

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]
First you must divide bollocks by bull-hocky. Add moralistic nonsense and stir in some command and control. Then 2+2= poppycock.
[/QUOTE]Spoken like a true liberal who doesn't understand the question but wants to take a slap at conservatives anyway. [img]smile.gif[/img]

NOW... if it was a conservative who didn't understand the question but wanted to take a swing at liberals, the response would look something like this:

First you multiply the welfare roles by 4, Add in some victims groups and environmentalists... finally stir in some Political Correctness. Then 2+2= poppycock unless you're a feminist, in which case it equals a poppyvagina, or if you're an environmentalists it equals poppyseeds. If you're a member of the teachers union it equals 3.5 (becuase of horrible budget cuts they couldn't afford a whole 4). If you're pro gun control it equals 8 (a one that's been shot twice by irresponsible gun owners). If you're pro-choice it equals 4... but ONLY if the mother CHOOSES to let it equal 4 (keep your arithmatic off my body!).

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Or, alternately, the same way arithmaticians cure constipation...by working it out with a pencil. [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

That's an oldie but a goodie, and of course the result is a natural log!