Our era's American civil rights issue: A milestone on gay discrimination

[MJinZ]

Are you retarded ? What are you going on about, you dont even make sense you moron.

No surprise you couldn't achieve even a semblance of comprehension. :awe:

What are you, maybe 100?

 

[zinfamous]

Couldn't the same argument be used against gay marriage though?

edit - We do after all put limits on siblings and in many states cousins marrying for many of those same reason.

not really, because statistically speaking, gay marriages (long-term couples, anyway) in comparison to straight marriages, show the same (usually better) rate of positive factors, such as stability, child-rearing--the types of issues that the anti-gay league fundamentally mis-characterizes in the face of all available data.

Also, as far as taxes are concerned, more marriages = more licenses, greater tax benefits. pigeonholing a pile of women into one single marriage seems to be against marriage-incentive tax purposes, no?

and we put limits on cousins and siblings marrying because as we well-know, such an endeavor is GENETIC STUPIDITY. That has nothing to do with taxes, or (as if anyone should care), the expected stability/happiness of the relationship. it benefits the genepool to limit inbreeding.

Fuck, this was understood long before Mendel.

 

[peonyu]

No surprise you couldn't achieve even a semblance of comprehension. :awe:

What are you, maybe 100?

Oh yea, there was alot to comprehend there...According to you, Gay marriage is fine. But Polygamy is bad...Because it just is. Uh yea, great argument there sparky. Real impressive.

And your childish comments on IQ show that you are likely either 13 or a severely challenged adult [not to mention your writing completely sucks]. So ill leave it that, you come across as a complete moron and I have better things to do than waste my time on you.

 

[zinfamous]

And the "social" issues concern over Polygamy falls into the same bracket as gay marriage does, and gay couples raising children. A "dad and dad" raising children is as "socially" different as a "dad and moms" or "mom and dads" raising children. So the social argument against polygamy holds no water if we have no standard to judge it against. And currently it looks like we are going to get rid of the traditional standard [that being 1 male and 1 female = marriage] by making gay marriage equal to traditional marriage. So with Gay marriage being allowed, the standards change...Polygamy according to this new standard should be fine.

Again, all available studies show that children raised by gay parents are no less stable than those raised by straight parents. As such, the rates of gay children raised by gay parents vs those raised by straight parents are also statistically equal. An argument against this is fundamentally un-informed.

As far as polygamous sects, go, the tendency to further engage one's children in polygamy is almost without question. Children are raised to believe that this is their only option. It is legally impossible to determine that a 14 year-old girl marrying a 72 year-old man did so of her own consent, seeing as how we do not recognize that as a legal age of consent, or the age in which rational thinking is developed. Otherwise, we'd be executing 12 year-old criminals left and right.

One can not divorce the concept of polygamy, from the KNOWN PRACTICE of polygamy when making such an argument. The concept of polygamy seems to be an equal argument for "alternative" marriage. But we already understand Polygamy as an institution, and how that institution is practiced today. Frankly, most of these people are fucking sick. Their practice essentially equates to child rape.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, he has the definition YOU like.

I am not a court and do not make legal definitions. Whether I like or do no like a legal definition changes nothing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Couldn't the same argument be used against gay marriage though?

edit - We do after all put limits on siblings and in many states cousins marrying for many of those same reason.

Yes, but so far all attempts to do so have been shown to be discriminatory bigotry in secular courts of law. The state can't enforce religious beliefs, superstition, and traditional violence against some minority. But rest assured, Al Quaeda, the Taliban, and Christian fundamentalist everywhere are working to overthrow secular government and return us to religious law. If they succeed, gays and a lot of the rest of us will be fucked.

 

[Craig234]

Sad that a country that wants to pride itself as being free prides itself with discrimination.

What group is next after Gays?

It's hard to know who or if there is another one.

Who knew women's right to vote would come after the 14th amendment, who knew ending slavery would come after the white men were freed from England, who knew the handicapped would have added rights after the civil rights movement, who knew the end of gay criminalization would be after the handicapped?

That's one of the fallacies of the 'strict interpreters', that the same situation when the constitution was created is fine - something the founding fathers disagreed with.

We don't have a clear 'discriminated next minority group' to protect; there are polygamists people like to bring up with gay marriage, and maybe there's something there; we have illegal immigrants and while they're not going to be given 'equal rights' IMO, there's the ongoing issue of legality, there might be better ways to address the issue that have been done with this hodge-podge approach of sometimes dealing with the practicalities there are 15 million+ people living here among us, and other times taking other actions.

The good news is, on civil rights, we've never had better laws as a nation, making us the best we've been on our nation's principles of equality.

 

[jackace]

Here is an article that explains my point of view better than I can.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

 

[Moonbeam]

Here is an article that explains my point of view better than I can.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

That was written in 2006. I don't know much but I have never seen anybody demanding Polygamy as a right. I see this whole polygamy is next nonsense as nothing buy paranoia. Are you interested in getting polygamy legalized? The only folk going on about it are those against gay marriage. It does not rise to the level of a real issue.

 

[Ozoned]

Natural law always seeks its own equilibrium. Our tendency as a nation has been to keep our defective people contained and hidden.

That's the only thing that has changed...

 

[Greenman]

That was written in 2006. I don't know much but I have never seen anybody demanding Polygamy as a right. I see this whole polygamy is next nonsense as nothing buy paranoia. Are you interested in getting polygamy legalized? The only folk going on about it are those against gay marriage. It does not rise to the level of a real issue.

Then the question becomes a matter of "how many". How many people have to be discriminated against before it's an issue? Being a conservative fellow, I'd say one.

 

[MJinZ]

Here is an article that explains my point of view better than I can.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I can see how primitives can agree with that. This is going to be hilarious AND fun. Peonyu, pay attention, you might activate a few brain cells here:

And now, polygamy.



With the sweetly titled HBO series "Big Love," polygamy comes out of the closet. Under the headline "Polygamists, Unite!" Newsweek informs us of "polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement." Says one evangelical Christian big lover: "Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle."

Irrelevant, but ironic that Christian "big lover".

Polygamy used to be stereotyped as the province of secretive Mormons, primitive Africans and profligate Arabs.

It still is, because that's all there is.

With "Big Love" it moves to suburbia as a mere alternative lifestyle.

About 1 in a hundred million.

As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage.[/quote[


Indeed, the same stirrings from the deepest recesses of the primitive minds of mass market American Idiots.

In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

Oh I would love to see this utterly logical essay.



Let's break down your retard logic here:


Using your definition: Marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender.


It does not follow that one aspect in a statement being attacked as prejudiced means all other aspects are prejudced. Non sequitur. Illogical.


Example: Marriage is defined as the union of two animals of opposite gender.


See what I did there retards? Marriage's requirement for humans is neither arbitrary, discriminatory nor indefensible denial of "individual choice".



(So what's next after Polygamy, bestiality? LOL!)


Similarly, the inference that just because gender is "arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice." does not mean that number restriction is "arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.".



You provided no support for the implied argument, so here, I will break it down for you:

Gender (Gay Marriage):​

Logic of Arbitrariness: The use of gender is not "arbitrary". It is directly related to the fact that most people are straight and thus, naturally a male-female couple.


Just because gender is not an "arbitrary" assignment (aka - there is a REASON) for it, does not mean that it does not mean the reason is either bigotted, discriminatory, or ignorant. The fact that marriage used to be restricted to Whites in the USA had a very very clear reason. That was because Blacks were slaves and not viewed as equals. That does not mean that non-inter-racial marriage was thus justified because there was A reason. The reason is not arbitrary, but then, it is also not a good reason.


Your rational basis test of both Gay Marriage and Polygamy have already failed test #1 (according to you) - the test of Arbitrariness.



Logic of Discriminatory: You are correct that in that using gender is discriminatory, and thus, may be examined as a reason for repeal. Note that discriminatory is not an automatic ground for dismissing an idea - the fact that we discriminate against criminals, sex offenders, etc etc are all very legal and for very good reason.

Your rational basis test passes Discriminatory for now. (This one was easy, even a monkey could have gotten this one).


Logic of Denial of Individual Choice: Using the rationale of "denial of individual choice" is not an argument often used by gay marriage activists, and is conversely, highly insinuating of "choice" in the matter.


As any straight (honest) man will tell you, he did not wake up one day and consciously decide (choose) to fuck a pussy. As any gay man or woman will tell you, they did not choose to want cock/pussy. While a choice of partner is obvious, the choice of the gender of partner is not a choice at all.


Your rational basis test for "Denial of Individual Choice" fails (utterly) for the issue of Gay Marriage.

Analysis
​

Now, you similarly applied 2 out of 3 irrelevant rationales to Polygamy. Why is this important? Because this demonstrates that you are in fact completely wrong about:


1) The reasons why gay marriage is proposed (well you got 1 out 3)

2) The inferred (faulty) transitive logic of it similarly applying to polygamists.

Conclusion 1, for the sake of Argument

​

Because you can not logically apply the same rational basis tests using the transitive property, you can not produce a logical argument for the support for polygamy using the same properties.

Thus, you do not have an argument at all and the discussion ceases here.


​

Conclusion 2, for the sake of argument

​

For the sake of argument, transitively applying (illogically) the same three rational basis tests, we have remaining ONE possible candidate that actually applies to Gay Marriage - Discriminatory.



Let's examine Discriminatory in light of Polygamy:


Is it OK to be discriminatory to polygamists for any reason on the matter of marriage?


Arguments for (yes, it is OK):


1) Gender inequality - most polygamists in a relatively patriarchal society (like ours) more deeply enshrines gender inequality towards woman. One man and many woman. This is largely due to biology, because woman can carry one gestation at once, and are the child-takers by nature (generally). Men seek to seed.


Promoting polygamy hugely promotes the denegration of women as unequal to men.



2) Stability:


The governmental goal and purpose of marriage is to foster stability (insert quote from the decision here from Judge Walker).



One can not reconcile stability with a polygamist's family because of the inherent unequal distribution of power, much like a fascist regime with a dictator at the top. Other forms of stability, like Economic stability are even more suspect, as the reliance on governmental subsidies would likely increase due to having decreases number of "parents per child".


Polygamist families are hugely unstable. History illustrates best.
​

​

3) Group vs Individual Rights and Abuse:


Discrimination against polygamists can be argued that Individuals are treated differently than groups in the eyes of the Law. Prima facie - if the dynamics are inherently different, then the discrimination is inherently present. The same way we treat corporate entities differently (discriminate for or against) than an individual.

Polygamists are group entities and thus subject to inherently set of scrutiny and protection/regulation.


There are more reasons, but I will stop here for now.

​

Conclusion 3, for the sake of argument​

​

The third conclusion, for the sake of argument, assumes that you can illogical use the transition property AND that even though they are generally unapplicable to the Gay Marriage proponents. Let's explore all three rational basis tests for Polygamy, for shits and giggles really:


Test of Arbitrariness -



Inherently, the number of members in a marriage is the farthest away from arbitrary as you can imagine.


I could list the reasons, but I will save my breath for your imagination. I'm sure you can come up with something (hint: much has already been touched upon above)



Test of Discrimination (this was done above, see above)


Test of Denial of Individual Choice


The Denial of Individual Choice is not a reasonable argument for prohibiting or allowing something. It is an individual's choice to do many illegal and criminal things. It is an individual's choice to love as many people as you want (polyamory). It is an individuals choice to do travel, eat, and live as they please - yet all of these aspects of life are regulated because we live in a society. If you'd like the definition of a society, I would check out Wikipedia. You give up certain "freedoms" in exchange for others, and also benefits and protections in a society.


The matter of Individual Choice, then, a useless measure of what we do and do not approve of in a society.



Conclusion 3 debunks your theory EVEN while using a non sequitur , AND 2 properties that are irrelevant to the Gay Marriage debate.


It's like saying you're a retard, you're brain damaged, and you're probably a fucking primitive monkey for coming up with this shit, and similarly 1/3 of this is likely true.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there.

Yes, actually you did, fucktard.

Their argument does.

No, actually your play house 5 year old "argument" does.

Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion," arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."

That's a valid argument. It is saying that homosexuals do not have a choice in the matter of sex and love (in choosing gender, that is). Polygamists have a choice in how they exercise their capacity to love.


No one is saying humans are restricted from loving multiple people at once. Psychologists probably have differing ideas of how possible this actually is (I have a theory that it's actually just bullshit, and you just want a bunch of fuck buddies and a ton of baby machines).


Hell, I have trouble dealing with loving more than one person at once. Wars are fought over 1 fucking person. People kill each other, rape each other, go fucking nuts for 1 fucking person and betrayal of the love.


I would love to see actual data for *really* loving more than one person, but I reserve my judgment until I do because I do not purport to know for sure, only the evidence put before me and the reason that my mind allows for.


However, the GOVERNMENT, for the sake of marriage, has no interest in granting marriages to a group of fucking people. It does not promote anything, except a license for man-card for the Man in the family.


That is the crucial take-away point from this. Gay Marriage does not undermine marriages. Polygamy undermines Marriage. Marrying pigs and sheep undermine marriages.

But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges" (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. Was "Jules et Jim" (and Jeanne Moreau), the classic Truffaut film involving two dear friends in love with the same woman, about an "activity" or about the most intrinsic of human emotions?

This is babble used to support your own false argument against Andrew Sullivan, as I had already argued above.

To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

On every single ground already explained above, which are both not arbitrary and for very good fucking reason of a marriage to begin with.


While the idea of gay polygamists makes the argument of women's equality moot, the rest apply completely.

What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful.

For completely legitimate reasons, as Gay Marriage is an acceptance of an inherent part of humanity - gay people - yes they are your kids, possibly your parents, brothers and sisters.


Polygamy undermines the concept of marriage itself.

Yet until this generation, gay marriage had been sanctioned by no society that we know of, anywhere at any time in history.




On the other hand, polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common, in large parts of the world through large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East and through much of the Islamic world.

Hoooo shit, you did not just act like a fucking retarded apeshit that you are... arguing that History is justification for policies? I could use slavery, genocide, women, wars etc, and fuck, if you even knew what those words mean, you wouldn't have thought to put up such a retarded line right there.





Holy fuck you are cursed by the Moron Church of the Latter-day Saints.

I'm not one of those who see gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to, or assault on, traditional marriage. The assault came from within. Marriage has needed no help in managing its own long, slow suicide, thank you.

Well, that's great that you recognize the 50% divorce rate and may not actually be a bigot.


It still really sucks to be you because of your apparent mental disability.

Astronomical rates of divorce and of single parenthood (the deliberate creation of fatherless families) existed before there was a single gay marriage or any talk of sanctioning polygamy. The minting of these new forms of marriage is a symptom of our culture's contemporary radical individualism -- as is the decline of traditional marriage -- and not its cause.


As for gay marriage, I've come to a studied ambivalence. I think it is a mistake for society to make this ultimate declaration of indifference between gay and straight life, if only for reasons of pedagogy. On the other hand, I have gay friends and feel the pain of their inability to have the same level of social approbation and confirmation of their relationship with a loved one that I'm not about to go to anyone's barricade to deny them that. It is critical, however, that any such fundamental change in the very definition of marriage be enacted democratically and not (as in the disastrous case of abortion) by judicial fiat.

You recognize that Gays and their Plight, yet can not fathom your own fucking idiocy and the droves of American Idiots just like you who actually ARE bigots, in that the democratically, your tyranny of the majority would be the ultimate irony of a civilized society.



Humans. Would. Fucking. Fail. If. Not. For. Select. Minds. Of. Brilliance. and. Reason.

Call me agnostic. But don't tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect.

I just did moron. Now it's up to God whether you can logically work out where you went horribly astray with your fallacies, and to realize just how ridiculous you sound.

 

[Craig234]

Then the question becomes a matter of "how many". How many people have to be discriminated against before it's an issue? Being a conservative fellow, I'd say one.

Now that's more 'conservative', which I distinguish from 'right wing'. Of course, liberals are all about the violations of one person's rights, too.

That's the thing, it's not that Conservatives are out to do wrong, it's an issue of helping them realize the errors they're making, like the 'tradition' of banning gay marriage justifying it.

For those who who have that view.

Just help them realize how good principles apply, and you might find they'll agree.

What so often confuses 'conservatives' about liberals' are the false myths they are fed, so that they think they're the only ones for good policy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then the question becomes a matter of "how many". How many people have to be discriminated against before it's an issue? Being a conservative fellow, I'd say one.

You seek to alter the definition of issue.

 

[Chaotic42]

I still can't understand how anyone who claims to want limited government can do anything but support the right of homosexuals to marry if they want.

 

[Craig234]

I still can't understand how anyone who claims to want limited government can do anything but support the right of homosexuals to marry if they want.

I can.

'Limited government' can mean to them not having 'overreaches', but not cutting 'good things it does'.

If you are too literal you could argue 'how can you want so many police investigating robberies?' But clearly they do.

The problem isn't that they have to support limited government in every issue, it's that they have the misguided/ignorant/bigoted view that gay marriage SHOULDN'T be equal.

You can no more win the 'limited government' argument with them on gay marriage than you could on getting rid of police. Their line is what they think is wasteful.

 

[MotF Bane]

I still can't understand how anyone who claims to want limited government can do anything but support the right of homosexuals to marry if they want.

Many who claim to want limited government want it limited to only the things they support; and often, those people will want the enforcement of moral codes, frequently religious in nature.

 

[MotF Bane]

I can.

'Limited government' can mean to them not having 'overreaches', but not cutting 'good things it does'.

If you are too literal you could argue 'how can you want so many police investigating robberies?' But clearly they do.

The problem isn't that they have to support limited government in every issue, it's that they have the misguided/ignorant/bigoted view that gay marriage SHOULDN'T be equal.

You can no more win the 'limited government' argument with them on gay marriage than you could on getting rid of police. Their line is what they think is wasteful.

And again you confuse anarchy with limited government.

 

[DanDaManJC]

And again you confuse anarchy with limited government.

im making an assumption here, but i'd guess craig was just pulling for an extreme example there, just to illustrate the point that the limited govt types are selective in their idea of limited govt

 

[DanDaManJC]

Im not pro gay marriage or pro polygamy, but it is hypocritical to be pro gay marriage and against polygamy. Both are not traditional forms of marriage, and if gay marriage is legalized then so should polygamy [provided that everyone involved are consenting adults]. I dont see any reason why that should not be the case, if Gay marriage is ok then what says Polygamy is wrong ? Where do you draw the line at.

And for those quoting the law on Polygamy...It wasnt to long ago that gay marriage was completely banned aswell. The traditional marriage law states that it is a union between a male and a female. So laws can obviously be changed.

And the "social" issues concern over Polygamy falls into the same bracket as gay marriage does, and gay couples raising children. A "dad and dad" raising children is as "socially" different as a "dad and moms" or "mom and dads" raising children. So the social argument against polygamy holds no water if we have no standard to judge it against. And currently it looks like we are going to get rid of the traditional standard [that being 1 male and 1 female = marriage] by making gay marriage equal to traditional marriage. So with Gay marriage being allowed, the standards change...Polygamy according to this new standard should be fine.

only a few posts above yours moonbeam lays out the beginning of what could be a perfectly rational and secular argument...

Geez, I guess I will have to explain Polygamy again in this thread too like I have had to do every other time it comes up in the forum even though I hate to do it because my explanation leads to almost as much resentment as the reality of my explanation would.

I am an animal in bed, with a magnificent and beautiful body and a woman killing face. On top of all that my feminine side is highly developed and my ability to relate to and enjoy the company of women astounding. There are probably only one in a thousand or so other men similar to me, if that, but it would be a small feat for me to acquire a thousand wives and far far more than that if I were to shoot for any but the finest. The result, of course, if polygamy were legal is that there would only be crones and witches available to the average guy and the sexual frustration of all those bachelors would lead to the destruction of society. Trust me, the state has an interest in keeping animals like me on a leach.

 

[Chaotic42]

im making an assumption here, but i'd guess craig was just pulling for an extreme example there, just to illustrate the point that the limited govt types are selective in their idea of limited govt

Everyone is selective in their moralities and ideas about government. People do their jobs with differing amounts of commitment, people give to charities at different rates, people want certain things from government.

I doubt any two people would agree on exactly what government should do.

 

[LunarRay]

Hehehehehehehe,
It just don't matter about what marriage is defined as by the right, left, middle or the Pygmy folks...

It is not illegal to be Gay!
Marriage is a Fundamental Right that is held by the individual!
Separate is not equal!
Any group that is a minority in standing by virtue of its population generally but other criteria can be considered and it is legal to be in that grouping can be considered a 'Suspect Class'!
Marriage is controlled by the State and the State enables who may perform the marriage function! A non State agency may refuse to perform a marriage if they see fit but a State agency may not. They must follow the law.
The State may not make illegal what is legal for other classes without meeting the scrutiny tests that might enable that 'discrimination'! Rational Basis is the lowest threshold, Intermediate Scrutiny being the middle and Strict Scrutiny being the highest hurdle. But of course as you'd expect Rational Basis is not applicable where a Suspect or Quasi Suspect Class or a Fundamental Right is involved. Gay Marriage and Gay Rights are not subject to Rational Basis review because they both involve Fundamental Rights and Gays are a Suspect Class in this and others issues.

California's Prop 8 does not even meet the Rational Basis test! The trial provided the motive behind it. Not only does it not meet the RB test it conforms to an Irrational Basis.
Baker v Nelson is the controlling case related to 'A Federal Issue'. How the 9th will deal with that depends but I can't believe any rational person cannot see what the real issue is here.

 

[Moonbeam]

How the 9th will deal with that depends but I can't believe any rational person cannot see what the real issue is here.

Any rational person will, but the problem is that folk who are not rational still think they are and their pretension always clouds the issue. There is hardly a nut case loose who knows it.

 

[LunarRay]

Any rational person will, but the problem is that folk who are not rational still think they are and their pretension always clouds the issue. There is hardly a nut case loose who knows it.

They don't know it! But, fortunately the Founders and rational minds since their time knew that there were irrational folks who could and would mass together to visit their irrational behavior upon anyone within their vista. Even the current crop of 'Interpreters' of our Constitution often find sentience and preclude the denial to others what the 'nut cases' demand for themselves... By and large the system works when rationality cages the irrationality.

How more clear can it be that the Prop 8 folks seek to deny to others what they demand for themselves... The individual's right to marriage! It amazes me that anyone would want to classify others as subordinate creatures to them the Chosen of their God because he said!!! This guy in the clouds who can't even keep finances in order...

 

[Taejin]

Next up, churches will be required to perform these 'marriages', freedom of religion be damned.

you're pretty fucking stupid if you really think that