detlef Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 what if three people wanted to get married? if man/woman doesn't matter, why should two vs. three consenting adults matter? Here's one for you. People bring up the bit about it needing to be a man and a woman because of kids. Why is legal to have kids if you're not married? Why is it legal to get a divorce if you've had children? The "slippery slope" goes both ways. If we're asking the state to define marriage in some way that is based on procreation, why stop at making sure it can only be men and women? Why is it legal for two people to get married and choose not to have kids? Isn't their marriage in violation of the intention of marriage? Why should we allow this? Why does the state of NC require you to go through a one year separation before you can get a divorce but not require you to live together for a while before you can get married? Wouldn't that make sense? I mean, assuming that it should be any of our business to begin with? "Hey, I get that you love each other and all, but have you ever shared a bathroom or balanced a check book together?" Oh wait, that would be living in sin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 So that ghey dudes like h8tank have a place to engage in public ghey sex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Hankk is our token gay? That's it? No way. There has to be some more gay Huddlers. Statistically. Oh. And what Rovers said. +1. big john already mentioned h8tank (may his oft-violated ass rest in innernet peace). and rocknrobin may qualify depending on how you qualify drunk-kissing mexicanos. and then of course you have every mystery huddler contestant since its inception... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 big john already mentioned h8tank (may his oft-violated ass rest in innernet peace). and rocknrobin may qualify depending on how you qualify drunk-kissing mexicanos. and then of course you have every mystery huddler contestant since its inception... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Gotta say, it would be nice if the Catholic church took as hard a line against pedophiles associated with the church as gay groups have taken with NAMBLA. Instead, they hide behind the cloth and claim persecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 what if three people wanted to get married? if man/woman doesn't matter, why should two vs. three consenting adults matter? That's the stickler in the "consenting adults" argument for gay civil unions/domestic partnerships/marriage by any other name - if two consenting adults can do as they wish, why not 3+? I have no rebut to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) That's the stickler in the "consenting adults" argument for gay civil unions/domestic partnerships/marriage by any other name - if two consenting adults can do as they wish, why not 3+? I have no rebut to this. That said, do we have any sort of data that supports a union between 3 consenting adults is bad? Or is everyone just guessing that's the case. I can assure you, from watching Big Love a few times, it's about the last thing in the world I'd want to involve myself with. But that's just me. Regardless, I don't know why opening it up to any two adults means we have to open it up to more than that. Edited September 30, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) what if three people wanted to get married? if man/woman doesn't matter, why should two vs. three consenting adults matter? Should other consenting adults be forced to live the most intimate parts of their lives subject to *your* approval? And are you willing to allow others to do the same to you? The "three way argument" is a bit of canard because gays aren't asking for the speculative hyperbole you're seem so worried about. We can cross that bridge if and when we ever get there. In the meantime, the dudes across the street from me are in a vastly more committed, long-term loving relationship than most folks I know. What legitimate reason could you possibly have to stand in the way of their love? Edited September 30, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) That's the stickler in the "consenting adults" argument for gay civil unions/domestic partnerships/marriage by any other name - if two consenting adults can do as they wish, why not 3+? I have no rebut to this. you're right, there's not a particularly compelling counter-argument. nevertheless, I would say my basic position comes down to: - the law should sanction civil partnerships between two consenting adults - that includes 'mos - the right of legal union should not be extended to polygamy (i.e., more than two people), but polygamists should absolutely not be prosecuted for cohabitation or anything of the sort. if they choose that lifestyle consciously as adults, so be it. In the meantime, the dudes across the street from me are in a vastly more committed, long-term loving relationship than most folks I know. What legitimate reason could you possibly have to stand in the way of their love? well sure, but as long as we're putting aside "speculative hyperbole", let's not pretend that whether the state extends the legal benefits of domestic union to them or doesn't is an issue that really stands in the way of their manlove. would you love your wife any less if it were a little more difficult to get her listed as a beneficiary if you ever had to collect SS disability benefits? Edited September 30, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) well sure, but as long as we're putting aside "speculative hyperbole", let's not pretend that whether the state extends the legal benefits of domestic union to them or doesn't is an issue that really stands in the way of their manlove. would you love your wife any less if it were a little more difficult to get her listed as a beneficiary if you ever had to collect SS disability benefits? *We* wouldn't love each other any less. But I'd be pissed off as all hell if some jackass in a totally different state - who didn't even know us - was okay punishing us for it. And the denial of equal marital rights is exactly that - punishment through lesser rights under the law. Az, no one is asking you like another man's balls in your face. But you should seriously consider letting your inner libertarian conquer your inner homophobe. You, of all people, should appreciate the supreme notions of protecting individual liberties, and rejecting governmental intrusion into our personal lives. Edited September 30, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) That said, do we have any sort of data that supports a union between 3 consenting adults is bad? Or is everyone just guessing that's the case. I can assure you, from watching Big Love a few times, it's about the last thing in the world I'd want to involve myself with. But that's just me. Regardless, I don't know why opening it up to any two adults means we have to open it up to more than that. Well, Big Love isn't exactly the best barometer here either - even the "good" polygamy in that show is secretive and deceitful by necessity. But as it stands, I don't really see the "slippery slope" going past possible inclusion of polygamous relationships. Edited September 30, 2011 by Chavez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 well sure, but as long as we're putting aside "speculative hyperbole", let's not pretend that whether the state extends the legal benefits of domestic union to them or doesn't is an issue that really stands in the way of their manlove. would you love your wife any less if it were a little more difficult to get her listed as a beneficiary if you ever had to collect SS disability benefits? The rub here is that marriage comes with a whole raft of legal rights that can be had for a nominal fee (IIRC my marriage license cost <$50, plus about $150 for the officiant) and a 15 minute ceremony. It doesn't affect how one feels about another person, but is it really fair that two people who decide to enter into that sort of partnership have to jump over, through, and around all kinds of hurdles to guarantee those rights for each other and devote a TON more time and money to it? To say nothing of the fact that in some cases, I think even if you have a living will, survivorship rights, etc without the benefit of "marriage" some peckerwood family member might fight to overturn those and win when you die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) *We* wouldn't love each other any less. But I'd be pissed off as all hell if some jackass in a totally different state - who didn't even know us - was okay punishing us for it. And the denial of equal marital rights is exactly that - punishment through lesser rights under the law. Az, no one is asking you like another man's balls in your face. But you should seriously consider letting your inner libertarian concur your inner homophobe. You, of all people, should appreciate the supreme notions of protecting individual liberties, and rejecting governmental intrusion into our personal lives. I think you mean conquer. but maybe you missed the part in this thread (including the post you just replied to) and many others where I have stated unequivocally that I am in favor of same-sex marriage rights. my inner libertarian won that war a long time ago. I was just saying that their love for one another isn't really terribly inhibited by either position on this issue -- they are pretty much free to live their lives as they please. and as I said that, I was specifically thinking about the allusion to polygamy -- those guys face actually going to prison and having their families broken up for their chosen family structure and living arrangments. those "consenting adults" are not even asking for any sort of legal sanction, they'd just like to be left the hell alone. it's an interesting juxtaposition. Edited September 30, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I think you mean conquer. but maybe you missed the part in this thread (including the post you just replied to) and many others where I have stated unequivocally that I am in favor of same-sex marriage rights. my inner libertarian won that war a long time ago. I was just saying that their love for one another isn't really terribly inhibited by either position on this issue -- they are pretty much free to live their lives as they please. and as I said that, I was specifically thinking about the allusion to polygamy -- those guys face actually going to prison and having their families broken up for their chosen family structure and living arrangments. those "consenting adults" are not even asking for any sort of legal sanction, they'd just like to be left the hell alone. it's an interesting juxtaposition. Yes, conquer. And I think you mean "arrangements." If rights are truly equal, then there's no need for governmental distinctions. What I'm hearing from some people in this thread is tantamount to "separate but equal" rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 That said, do we have any sort of data that supports a union between 3 consenting adults is bad? Or is everyone just guessing that's the case. I can assure you, from watching Big Love a few times, it's about the last thing in the world I'd want to involve myself with. But that's just me. Regardless, I don't know why opening it up to any two adults means we have to open it up to more than that. I'd enjoy sharing the chores with a co-husband. It would also be sweet if he shared the "listening" duties. We could split access to the wife MWF or TTS with both of us getting sunday off to enjoy a ballgame together. With my four days a week off i could more or less take up all the things I use to do as a single guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skilly Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I'd enjoy sharing the chores with a co-husband. It would also be sweet if he shared the "listening" duties. We could split access to the wife MWF or TTS with both of us getting sunday off to enjoy a ballgame together. With my four days a week off i could more or less take up all the things I use to do as a single guy. Brilliant! Marriage is an outdated system that stemmed from religion. Religion is illogical and mostly harmful (you will not convince me otherwise). Religion and State should be seperate. People should not receive state benefits because of marriage. All this aside, you would think the divorce lawyers would be lobbying hard for this amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Surpised at the borderline acceptance of polygamy here: 'Big Love"'s entertainment value aside, polygamy is based on the subservience of women to men. It is about reducing civil rights in individuals based on their sex; no jobs, no right to vote, etc. Being pro Gay Martiage is 100% contrary to that since it is looking to expand civil rights. It's not even an apples and oranges thing but a wholly disingenuous comparison. It's yet another bs straw man argument that underscores the weakness of the anti Gay stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Surpised at the borderline acceptance of polygamy here: 'Big Love"'s entertainment value aside, polygamy is based on the subservience of women to men. It is about reducing civil rights in individuals based on their sex; no jobs, no right to vote, etc. Being pro Gay Martiage is 100% contrary to that since it is looking to expand civil rights. It's not even an apples and oranges thing but a wholly disingenuous comparison. It's yet another bs straw man argument that underscores the weakness of the anti Gay stance. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Surpised at the borderline acceptance of polygamy here: 'Big Love"'s entertainment value aside, polygamy is based on the subservience of women to men. It is about reducing civil rights in individuals based on their sex; no jobs, no right to vote, etc. Being pro Gay Martiage is 100% contrary to that since it is looking to expand civil rights. It's not even an apples and oranges thing but a wholly disingenuous comparison. It's yet another bs straw man argument that underscores the weakness of the anti Gay stance. +1. A quick glance at the rights accorded to women in polygamy-legal Islamic countries confirms all this. It's as worthy an argument as man on dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 +1. A quick glance at the rights accorded to women in polygamy-legal Islamic countries confirms all this. It's as worthy an argument as man on dog. You don't have to get out of Utah and the way it was practiced there to see it, much less countries where civil rights don't even exist as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 You don't have to get out of Utah and the way it was practiced there to see it, much less countries where civil rights don't even exist as such. But we're still good with all-chick three ways, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 +1. A quick glance at the rights accorded to women in polygamy-legal Islamic countries confirms all this. It's as worthy an argument as man on dog. What if it's a F/F/F or M/M/M or M/M/F multiple-partner marriage? Or insert any pairing that doesn't apply to your "wimmins be all oppressed'n'sh*t" straw man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Surpised at the borderline acceptance of polygamy here: 'Big Love"'s entertainment value aside, polygamy is based on the subservience of women to men. It is about reducing civil rights in individuals based on their sex; no jobs, no right to vote, etc. Being pro Gay Martiage is 100% contrary to that since it is looking to expand civil rights. It's not even an apples and oranges thing but a wholly disingenuous comparison. It's yet another bs straw man argument that underscores the weakness of the anti Gay stance. I think the reason why I might not have much trouble with the notion in general, is because I'd prefer that the state get out of the marriage game, which means it stops pretending to preside over unions based in love. In other words, any two (or three, or four) people could officially create some union, be it platonic or not, where they've pooled assets and enjoy some of the same legal advantages that are currently only afforded to married couples. Of course, this comes at a cost. To dissolve said arrangement would be as sticky as many marriages. Who gets this? Who gets that? Etc. Certainly some of these unions could be abusive and wrong. Sort of like many man/woman marriages. I certainly don't endorse the manner in which polygamy seems to exist now (then again, like I mentioned above, the existence of bad man/woman marriages hasn't caused anyone to want to do away with that concept). But, I suppose I'm not talking about polygamy, because that does imply marriage. I'm really just talking about a business relationship. Because that is how I feel the state should see all civil unions. Not hugely different than the relationship I have with my investors. Regardless, like you said, it's not as if this is some inevitable path that we're bound to head down if we allow gays to marry. Edited October 3, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 With my four days a week off i could more or less take up all the things I use to do as a single guy. I too miss rubbing one out on the couch in peace and quiet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I think the reason why I might not have much trouble with the notion in general, is because I'd prefer that the state get out of the marriage game, which means it stops pretending to preside over unions based in love. In other words, any two (or three, or four) people could officially create some union, be it platonic or not, where they've pooled assets and enjoy some of the same legal advantages that are currently only afforded to married couples. Of course, this comes at a cost. To dissolve said arrangement would be as sticky as many marriages. Who gets this? Who gets that? Etc. Certainly some of these unions could be abusive and wrong. Sort of like many man/woman marriages. I certainly don't endorse the manner in which polygamy seems to exist now (then again, like I mentioned above, the existence of bad man/woman marriages hasn't caused anyone to want to do away with that concept). But, I suppose I'm not talking about polygamy, because that does imply marriage. I'm really just talking about a business relationship. Because that is how I feel the state should see all civil unions. Not hugely different than the relationship I have with my investors. Regardless, like you said, it's not as if this is some inevitable path that we're bound to head down if we allow gays to marry. I think there may be some practical issues with polygamy aside from the "enslavement" thing. Survivor benefits - one of the objections to gay marriage is that it would extend survivor benefits (which it would, by a very tiny amount) but what would happen in a polygamous situation? Would all xx number of wives receive benefits? Gender balance - there's a reason the number of boys / girls born is extremely close. Polygamy on a significant scale might damage the gene pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.