Originally posted by lucifershammerNo reason why polygamy shold be illegal.
Well, why not?
#1 - Here's your chance to post reasons why homosexual marriages should be legal but not polygamy and incest.
Incest should be illegal for many reasons, some of which bbarr cited in another thread.
No reason why zoophilia should be illegal if the animal gives consent.
Originally posted by shavixmir
None what-so-ever.
As long as everybody is adult and is doing what they want to be doing...who am I to judge then?
Guppy Poo, can you write a little essay on why and how progressive Holland turned into liberal Holland ? Maybe you can look in the mirror for some inspiration ..... 😛
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm afraid many of my posts are being censored beyond the artistic acceptability of the moment and as such it is far from my capability to obli....
Guppy Poo, can you write a little essay on why and how progressive Holland turned into liberal Holland ? Maybe you can look in the mirror for some inspiration ..... 😛
Oh...
Sorry...
You were taking the piss?
Originally posted by no1marauderAlrighty ... I'm not a lawyer, so this is my best effort after about 20 minutes of Googling:
OK, if at the same time I'm doing that, you post reasons why ALL THREE should be illegal. Fair enough?
Jones v. Hallahan (Ky, 1973)
The sections of Kentucky statutes relating to marriage do not include a definition of that term. It must therefore be defined according to common usage.
Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:
"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."
(a few more dictionary definitions later)
Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. For a time the records of marriage were kept by the church. Some states even now recognize a common-law marriage which has neither the benefit of license nor clergy. In all cases, however, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary.
It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined.
A license to enter into a status or a relationship which the parties are incapable of achieving is a nullity. If the appellants had concealed from the clerk the fact that they were of the same sex and he had issued a license to them and a ceremony had been performed, the resulting relationship would not constitute a marriage.
Also,
Baehr v. Lewin (Baehr I)
(Heen, J. dissenting) Although appellants suggest an analogy between the racial classification involved in Loving and Perez and the alleged sexual classification involved in the case at bar, we do not find such an analogy. The operative distinction lies in the relationship which is described by the term "marriage" itself, and that relationship
is the legal union of one man and one woman... [A]ppellants are not being denied entry into the marriage relationship because of their sex; rather, they are being denied entry into the marriage relationship because of the recognized definition of that relationship as one which may be entered into only by two persons who are members of the opposite sex. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 253-55, 522 P.2d 1187, 1191-92, review denied, 84 Wash.2d 1008 (1974) (footnotes omitted).
Don't shoot me if I've got the context wrong! 🙂
Originally posted by shavixmirNo Guppy Poo, I'm interested in these developments. I'm interested why the Dutch progressives became liberals.
I'm afraid many of my posts are being censored beyond the artistic acceptability of the moment and as such it is far from my capability to obli....
Oh...
Sorry...
You were taking the piss?
.... and the mirror thingy refers to you being liberal.
Originally posted by lucifershammerOK, first I will argue why gay marriages should be legally recognized. Then I'll play devil's advocate and present some arguments why polygamy and incest should NOT be allowed.
Alrighty ... I'm not a lawyer, so this is my best effort after about 20 minutes of Googling:
Jones v. Hallahan (Ky, 1973)
The sections of Kentucky statutes relating to marriage do not include a definition of that term. It must therefore be defined according to common usage.
Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines ...[text shortened]... sh.2d 1008 (1974) (footnotes omitted).
Don't shoot me if I've got the context wrong! 🙂
What gays seek is to enter into a civil contract (that's the definition in NY and most states) with rights, privileges and responsibilities which are a matter of law in the United States. No one would assert that a gay person should be incapable to enter into any other civil contract; getting a loan, buying a car, etc. Therefore, it is incumbent on those who wish to deny gays the right to enter into the civil status of marriage to give at the very least a rational reason why they should be so discriminated against (discriminated meaning treated differently; whether the discrimination is illegal depends on why you are being discriminated against).
It is unsuprising that gay marriage has not been recognized in the US; it was only last year that the Supreme Court finally said that engaging in homosexual activity couldn't get you thrown in prison! But there is nothing intrinsic about civil marriage that would restrict it to opposite sex couples; the laws regarding tax status, inheritance rights, property rights, etc. of married people have nothing to do with gender. Therefore, A) Gays are equal to everybody else; B) Marriage is a social contract regulated by the State open to other adults; so C) It should be open to gays too unless there is some important governmental reason not to allow them to enter civil marriage. As no such reason as been advanced, gay marriage should be legal.
Polygamy is a patriachal, obedience driven system which is incompatible with a democratic free society. Women are left in an inferior position which is contrary to our ideas of equality. As it relies on male dominance, it is also more likely to lead to spousal and child abuse. Therefore, unlike gay marriage which would reinforce the basic message of American society that all are equal, polygamy would run contrary to our most basic governmental principles.
Incest can raise the risk of genetic diseases and abnormalities. Close relatives who engaged in incest would be likely to suffer severe psychological harm. Therefore, unlike gay marriages which would solemnize already existing relationships and grant people more rights and benefits and thus be a plus for them, the allowing of incest would likely cause harm to those who engaged in it and therefore, its prohibition helps those individuals (like gun or drug laws).
Please note I gave rational reasons for the outlawing of incest and polygamy. Please return the favor and give me rational reasons for outlawing gay marriage, not just try to eliminate the issue by defining civil marriage in such a way as to forever exclude gays from it. Legal definitions are human constructs and changeable. By the logis c of those courts, the banning of interracial marriage would have been OK because it had always been banned in most of the country until the 1950's; thus the definition of marriage wouldn't have included an interracial couple.
Incest is bad for society because sex between people with too-close genetic material can produce, at worst horrible mutations, at best insufficient evolutionary chances. Hence it should be banned.
I don't really care about polygamy. It could arguably be banned based on the idea that marriage brings with it certain tax, property, etc. advantages which could be subject to unfair manipulation if they were spread out among multiple people, but that's largely a crock. I see no real harm from polygymany, so it should be legal.
Ditto with homosexualgamy.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIsn't that the most absurd circular reasoning you've ever heard?
[A]ppellants are not being denied entry into the marriage relationship because of their sex; rather, they are being denied entry into the marriage relationship because of the recognized definition of that relationship as one which may be entered into only by two persons who are members of the opposite sex. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 253-55, ...[text shortened]... sh.2d 1008 (1974) (footnotes omitted).[/i]
Don't shoot me if I've got the context wrong! 🙂
"We're not discriminating against people in providing a right based on sex. We're just defining the right to be provided as one that only exists in certain sexual pairings"
Originally posted by paultopiaI'll quote you some Burns when i find the book,
Isn't that the most absurd circular reasoning you've ever heard?
"We're not discriminating against people in providing a right based on sex. We're just defining the right to be provided as one that only exists in certain sexual pairings"
but basically it boils down to this we are all men (women) and what the hell does it matter what we do if it has no impact on your fellow man (woman)
live and let live.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Polygamy is a patriachal, obedience driven system which is
incompatible with a democratic free society. Women are left in an
inferior position which is contrary to our ideas of equality. As it relies
on male dominance, it is also more likely to lead to spousal and child
abuse. Therefore, unlike gay marriage which would reinforce the basic
message of American society that all are equal, polygamy would run
contrary to our most basic governmental principles.
Um, this is only one kind of polygamy. There was all sort of partner
swaping and free love that went on the the 60s that wasn't
patriarchal. I don't think it is right to assume that polygamy
necessarily would involve a harem situation with one man and many
women.
Let's imagine a situation where three men and three women all
wanted to get married to each other. There would be no patriarchal
dominance expressed. Would this be permissible?
If it is your argument is that polygamy MIGHT lead to patriarchal
dominance then you might be unsurprised to know that many people
claim that homosexuality leads to promiscuity and associated health
risks to the public.
Should we make it illegal for a woman to get back together with an
abusive husband; that is, to enter back into the patriarchal
dominance?
Originally posted by no1marauder
Incest can raise the risk of genetic diseases and abnormalities.
Close relatives who engaged in incest would be likely to suffer severe
psychological harm. Therefore, unlike gay marriages which would
solemnize already existing relationships and grant people more rights
and benefits and thus be a plus for them, the allowing of incest would
likely cause harm to those who engaged in it and therefore, its
prohibition helps those individuals (like gun or drug laws).
There are two parts of the argument 1) genetic and 2) psychological.
1) Genetic: This argument doesn't hold an ounce of water; if we are
going to make laws about minimizing 'undesirable' genetic conditions,
then all people with hereditary 'diseases' shouldn't be allowed to
marry or procreate, including people with hereditary deafness, Downs
Syndrome, dwarfism, and so forth. Additionally, this works off of the
assumption that procreation is a necessary part of a union (which it is
not). Obviously, procreation between two members of the same sex
isn't possible, so the argument cannot be applied to homosexual
unions.
2) Psychological: The presumption that two relatives would necessarily
be unstable isn't sufficiently credible to maintain an argument.
Consider first cousins, who saw each other intermitantly (perhaps went
to school together). Consider a father and daughter who were
seperated at birth and met when the daughter was 20 and the father
40. Should either the cousins or father-daughter pair be prevented
from marrying?
Remember that many people argue that homosexuals come from
disproportionately disfunctional or abusive homes (relative to the
so-called 'normal' people) and, as a result, have psychologically
unstable relationships.
Both fallible arguments can be turned against homosexuality.
No go, #1.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioWhat does necessity have to do with no1's argument? The state can mandate a speed limit, because it has an interest in preventing harm, even though it isn't necessarily the case that everybody who speeds will be harmed. Similarly, the state could claim it has an interest in preventing incestuous unions that would likely (not necessarily) involve some psychological harm, instability, inability to consent, etc. etc.
(2) Psychological: The presumption that two relatives would necessarily be unstable isn't sufficiently credible to maintain an argument.