NJ Allows Gay Something - Page 2

Novae · 11-05-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

The only problem I have with that arrangement is that it reeks of 'seperate but equal' to me.

That's something that doesn't seem right at all. I know it's marriage and not something like a restaurant or a school district, but still... we all know what happens when our government is trusted with equality.

Besides, there isn't much argument against gay marriage that isn't religious. The only atheist I've ever met that isn't for gay marriage (but is for "civil unions") said that it was dangerous not because of the shitty animal marriage concerns, but because of the polygamists.

The difference between them is that polygamy IS a behavioral choice, and that homosexuality is, by all scientific evidence, biological.

9th Engineer · 11-05-2006, 07:17 PM

I don't agree with that analysis at all, you say that polygamy is an active choice? What are the grounds for that? If you say that someone should just be happy with a single spouce then I can make the argument that someone should just be happy with a partner of the opposite sex. Even putting aside the issue of choice, it's going to be open and shut to get polygamy passed from a legalistic point of reference, which is really the only thing that matters here. I think we're going to see alot of the same people who called gay marriage dissenters bigots go out of their way now to smear polygamists as much as possible. One of the strongest arguments against gay marriage is the fact that one you put it into law it sets all the legal precidents needed to forge ahead with polygamous marriage. What's really going to make me sick is when liberals start using family values and scare tactics to make polygamy look like a cult in order to side step the issue that it is the logical continuation.

Ibby · 11-05-2006, 07:26 PM

I'm against polygamy on a moral basis, but I think making it legal would be the right thing to do, as long as it's carefully checked for abuse and all the other assorted filth that often goes along with it. Having multiple spouses, okay. Abusing them or their children, NOT okay.

9th Engineer · 11-05-2006, 07:34 PM

Of course, so what you're saying is that they should be governed by the same rules as the rest of us then...

Ibby · 11-05-2006, 08:19 PM

Exactly. No restrictions on who you marry (or, i guess, how many), but the same restrictions on what you can do after that as anyone else.

9th Engineer · 11-05-2006, 09:37 PM

I wonder if this is going to have any impact on the benefits extended to couples with children, and how the paperwork is handled. Beyond just adding a few checkboxes to the forms, do you think that fewer and fewer perks are going to be tossed at parents? Maybe it's not as bad as it looks, it may start to turn back the trend of the educated classes having 1.2 kids while Mr. Woodsman goes home to his family of 12.

Aliantha · 11-05-2006, 09:51 PM

I don't see what polygamy and gay marriage have in common. I don't see why there is or should be any connection between the legislation of gay marriage and polygamy.

Clodfobble · 11-05-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I don't see what polygamy and gay marriage have in common. I don't see why there is or should be any connection between the legislation of gay marriage and polygamy.

The arguments for them are generally the same. 'Consenting adults should be able to marry who they want.' Can you think of an argument that makes polygamy inherently wrong, as long as all of the adults involved are consenting?

Aliantha · 11-05-2006, 10:07 PM

Well I don't see anything inherantly wrong with either, so I see the point now. Thanks. I had no idea that was the main argument against it.

Novae · 11-05-2006, 10:36 PM

In response to everything that was said after my post:

You know, this is going to sound false, but I mean it. You guys have kind of changed my mind. It isn't fair for any consenting adults to be restricted in their affections, emotional, physical or otherwise.

The government should have no power over consenting relations.

Undertoad · 11-05-2006, 10:49 PM

The gummint doesn't have any power over consenting relations (in most states), but it has the ability to restrict a set of rights.

To the state, a marriage is a financial and legal partnership. To deny this partnership to any two individuals is wrong, but the state can call it whatever it wants to.

As for the polylove argument: that such partnerships simply can't be three-way, seems much more logical than to say a legal partnership can't be made between two people of the same sex. The legal difficulties of a three-way partnership are mind-boggling to start.

Novae · 11-05-2006, 10:59 PM

Yeah, the legality of it is what matters. I don't think many people are pushing for religiously recognized same-sex marriage. Then again, I could be wrong.

I don't understand polygamy, which I suppose would give me more license to research it than to condemn it. That would be pretty hard to govern, but at the same time, the more I think about it, the more it just seems like another consenting relationship.

That's the main word, consent.

Clodfobble · 11-05-2006, 11:16 PM

Ugh, just try to imagine a polygamist divorce: Joe wants to divorce wife #2, Anne, while staying married to Betty and Louise. Is Anne entitled to half of the value of the house, or 1/4th? If it's not half, do you also take into account the fact that Betty has been part of the marriage for several more years than Anne? What if Louise and Anne share a car; are they getting divorced too, or is it just a divorce from Joe? What a nightmare.

On the other hand, the type of people who get into polygamist marriages are also not usually the type to divorce.

Novae · 11-05-2006, 11:24 PM

Jesus, I'd never thought of those legal tie-ups... that would be such a bitch for the one to deal with the paperwork.

Quote:

On the other hand, the type of people who get into polygamist marriages are also not usually the type to divorce.

Good point.

Spexxvet · 11-06-2006, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Ugh, just try to imagine a polygamist divorce: Joe wants to divorce wife #2, Anne, while staying married to Betty and Louise. Is Anne entitled to half of the value of the house, or 1/4th? If it's not half, do you also take into account the fact that Betty has been part of the marriage for several more years than Anne? What if Louise and Anne share a car; are they getting divorced too, or is it just a divorce from Joe? What a nightmare.

On the other hand, the type of people who get into polygamist marriages are also not usually the type to divorce.

So make up the rules before making it legal. If they want in, they have to play by the rules of the game.

11-05-2006, 07:17 PM	#17
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	I don't agree with that analysis at all, you say that polygamy is an active choice? What are the grounds for that? If you say that someone should just be happy with a single spouce then I can make the argument that someone should just be happy with a partner of the opposite sex. Even putting aside the issue of choice, it's going to be open and shut to get polygamy passed from a legalistic point of reference, which is really the only thing that matters here. I think we're going to see alot of the same people who called gay marriage dissenters bigots go out of their way now to smear polygamists as much as possible. One of the strongest arguments against gay marriage is the fact that one you put it into law it sets all the legal precidents needed to forge ahead with polygamous marriage. What's really going to make me sick is when liberals start using family values and scare tactics to make polygamy look like a cult in order to side step the issue that it is the logical continuation. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

11-05-2006, 07:26 PM	#18
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	I'm against polygamy on a moral basis, but I think making it legal would be the right thing to do, as long as it's carefully checked for abuse and all the other assorted filth that often goes along with it. Having multiple spouses, okay. Abusing them or their children, NOT okay. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

11-05-2006, 07:34 PM	#19
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	Of course, so what you're saying is that they should be governed by the same rules as the rest of us then... __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

11-05-2006, 08:19 PM	#20
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Exactly. No restrictions on who you marry (or, i guess, how many), but the same restrictions on what you can do after that as anyone else. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

11-05-2006, 09:37 PM	#21
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	I wonder if this is going to have any impact on the benefits extended to couples with children, and how the paperwork is handled. Beyond just adding a few checkboxes to the forms, do you think that fewer and fewer perks are going to be tossed at parents? Maybe it's not as bad as it looks, it may start to turn back the trend of the educated classes having 1.2 kids while Mr. Woodsman goes home to his family of 12. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

11-05-2006, 09:51 PM	#22
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	I don't see what polygamy and gay marriage have in common. I don't see why there is or should be any connection between the legislation of gay marriage and polygamy. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

11-05-2006, 10:07 PM	#24
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	Well I don't see anything inherantly wrong with either, so I see the point now. Thanks. I had no idea that was the main argument against it. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

11-05-2006, 10:36 PM	#25
Novae Art may imitate life, but life imitates T.V. Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington. Coffeetown. Posts: 27	In response to everything that was said after my post: You know, this is going to sound false, but I mean it. You guys have kind of changed my mind. It isn't fair for any consenting adults to be restricted in their affections, emotional, physical or otherwise. The government should have no power over consenting relations.

11-05-2006, 10:49 PM	#26
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The gummint doesn't have any power over consenting relations (in most states), but it has the ability to restrict a set of rights. To the state, a marriage is a financial and legal partnership. To deny this partnership to any two individuals is wrong, but the state can call it whatever it wants to. As for the polylove argument: that such partnerships simply can't be three-way, seems much more logical than to say a legal partnership can't be made between two people of the same sex. The legal difficulties of a three-way partnership are mind-boggling to start.

11-05-2006, 10:59 PM	#27
Novae Art may imitate life, but life imitates T.V. Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington. Coffeetown. Posts: 27	Yeah, the legality of it is what matters. I don't think many people are pushing for religiously recognized same-sex marriage. Then again, I could be wrong. I don't understand polygamy, which I suppose would give me more license to research it than to condemn it. That would be pretty hard to govern, but at the same time, the more I think about it, the more it just seems like another consenting relationship. That's the main word, consent.

11-05-2006, 11:16 PM	#28
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Ugh, just try to imagine a polygamist divorce: Joe wants to divorce wife #2, Anne, while staying married to Betty and Louise. Is Anne entitled to half of the value of the house, or 1/4th? If it's not half, do you also take into account the fact that Betty has been part of the marriage for several more years than Anne? What if Louise and Anne share a car; are they getting divorced too, or is it just a divorce from Joe? What a nightmare. On the other hand, the type of people who get into polygamist marriages are also not usually the type to divorce. __________________ My book My other book My spirit animal

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode