Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[martybegan]

Interesting article in the Federalist:

Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Some quotes:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”

Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.

The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

 

[R.D.]

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell

 

[Iceweasel]

The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized.

It's not a slippery slope. What's the argument against it? It has a history as long as mankind and rejecting traditional marriage while claiming we need to adhere to the late tradition of two people is odd and illogical.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.

Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.

MYOB

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

 

[martybegan]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

 

[Ravi]

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[martybegan]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

 

[martybegan]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

 

[Dana7360]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.

You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America.

There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind.
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.

That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.

The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.

As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either.

If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.

 

[R.D.]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

 

[Ravi]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[martybegan]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.

You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America.

There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind.
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.

That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.

The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.

As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either.

If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.

Such a simplistic understanding of how the world works. Its almost precious.

There can be plenty of other restrictions on a contract, even the marriage contract. You have to pass a blood test, you can't be related within a certain degree, and you can only have one at a time. All of those are perfectly valid legal restrictions above the three you posted.

Next, I would vote FOR same sex marriage if it came up in a referendum, my opposition comes when it is based on judicial fiat in opposition of the separation of powers found in the constitution.

Next, unlike gays, blacks are smart enough to go to service providers who want to cater to them. Also, sooner or later black religious people will be sued for this crap under PA laws, once the degree of acceptable "outness" in the black community approaches that of the white community. Watch how support for PA laws among the socially conservative blacks dried up after that.

Finally, the definition of a PA has been warped to include every business out there. Services for a wedding are not PA's.

 

[martybegan]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.

 

[martybegan]

Fuck off and Die. Implying these people want to torture or kill gays just by opposing gay marriage is foul.

A pox on your house.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Fuck off and Die. Implying these people want to torture or kill gays just by opposing gay marriage is foul.

A pox on your house.

The only thing with a pox on it in this thread is opposition to gay rights. 25 states, soon to be 30, and counting.

 

[Ravi]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.

You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.

btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.