Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was under the impression that the god who struck people dead for spilling seed on the ground and blessed Lot for offering his 2 daughters to a rape Mob was not the same god he ended up being *in a growing change his mind way not swap gods*
And as a foot not The priest i spoke to after reading the bible told me that the "do not lay with another man" thing came about from god trying to re-populate the earth after his last flood tanturm. So if thats the case does it even still apply?

Just asking don't bite my head off if you disagree.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.

If children aren't involved and the legal rights of all parties are clear, nothing.

Frazzled wrote:No the 9th circuit has a nice history of such maneuvers. Its the most ocverturned court in the US.

Such manouvers? They are overturned, and have a history of stretching the constitution. But attempting to stop a public school giving a pledge including 'under God' is simply nothing like allowing paedophile marriage. It isn't a thought entertained by people who want to be taken seriously.

So let me just ask you this one last time... do you think there is any chance at all in the next fifty years that paedophile marriage will be in any way legally allowed in any part of the US?

Whats wrong with gay adoption?

In my opinion? Nothing? For the people who honestly think allowing gay marriage will lead to paedophile marriage? Probably a lot.

Well, the legal argument by NAMBLA might be the same as for Gay Rights groups, but that's ignoring the merit of the respective claims and all the corresponding law that surrounds it. Gay Sodomy laws were struck down because they violated equal protection, in that they punished some offenders (men) more than others (women). Gender is a semi-protected class, and there is no really good state purpose to allowing man on woman anal sex but not man on man.

Gay marriage laws are being challenged on similar grounds, but probably will (and frankly should) fail because there is a strong state purpose in only endorsing heterosexual marriages: the production of children and all that. Gay couples can adopt, or use surrogacy or donor sperm, but I think the argument that children born of the marriage are good for the state will be enough in Federal courts. Of course I think Gay marriage should be legal, but it should be an act of legislation, not of the courts.

The nambla argument is basically the same, except age is in no way a suspect class. our laws are riddled with discrimination based on age, and the courts have seldom lifted a finger.

As for Polygamy, the argument that there is a state reason to ban it is even stronger than for gay marriage: Polygamy is really bad for a community. If one man has five wives, than four guys have no wives. Additionally, there is no legal protection for wanting more wives. There is no protected class there.

The Ninth Circuit is notoriously liberal, and likes to read things into the constituion that aren't always there, but they also have done pretty exceptional work over the years in many areas of free speech and immigration law. It's also such a huge area with such a massive population that a lot of decisions are made. I'd imagine even if the 9th struck down a Polygamy ban on appeal, there would be an en bank decision affirming.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.

There are loads of people who have partners living in the same household as their wife. It's more to do with the rights involved with a marriage. + how exactly do you police the rule "you can do what you want with someone as long as each person consents"? Kind of leeway for a lot of dubiousness there.

sebster wrote:No the 9th circuit has a nice history of such maneuvers. Its the most ocverturned court in the US.

Such manouvers? They are overturned, and have a history of stretching the constitution. But attempting to stop a public school giving a pledge including 'under God' is simply nothing like allowing paedophile marriage. It isn't a thought entertained by people who want to be taken seriously.

So let me just ask you this one last time... do you think there is any chance at all in the next fifty years that paedophile marriage will be in any way legally allowed in any part of the US?

Frazzled wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.

If children aren't involved and the legal rights of all parties are clear, nothing.

I don't get this protecting the kids thing. So what if I a kid has more than one person they call Mum or Dad? Many children these days do. Regardless of who is bonking who, where kids are concerned, surely the only thing to worry about is whether or not the kids are being loved? Would it really be any weirder than my upbringing, which was an extremely close knit family that shared parental duties, enabling various parents a weekend off? I was still surrounded my multiple adults? Do those adults need to be inter related? I think not.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.

If children aren't involved and the legal rights of all parties are clear, nothing.

I don't get this protecting the kids thing. So what if I a kid has more than one person they call Mum or Dad? Many children these days do. Regardless of who is bonking who, where kids are concerned, surely the only thing to worry about is whether or not the kids are being loved? Would it really be any weirder than my upbringing, which was an extremely close knit family that shared parental duties, enabling various parents a weekend off? I was still surrounded my multiple adults? Do those adults need to be inter related? I think not.

Scientific studies show unstable households, and that is a screamingly unstable household, leads to real problems for the kidlets. I don't care if you screw a goat, but if it impacts the kids your rights just got sublimated to the interests of the kid. Don't like it? Don't have children. Thats both stare decisis and legislated priority pretty much throughout the US.

But Dude, you are automatically assuming that a multiple partner household would be less stable than a single pair household.

I personally do not buy that! Surely a happy home is a happy home, regardless of how many people live in it?

Frazzled wrote:Not that all sure.

Really? We're talking NAMBLA here, brain breakingly repugnant, eight year olds marrying 30 year olds. You're not sure if that might happen. Come on.

I have no issue with gay marriage. If I have to be married everyone should suffer...
I DO think that using courts to legalize gay marriage sets up unforeseen impacts.

Lots of things have unforeseen impacts. But letting ourselves go silly and starting to predict the silliest, most fanciful futures is really no reason to deny a large number of people the right to stand up in front of their loved ones, get married and be miserable.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I don't get this protecting the kids thing. So what if I a kid has more than one person they call Mum or Dad? Many children these days do. Regardless of who is bonking who, where kids are concerned, surely the only thing to worry about is whether or not the kids are being loved? Would it really be any weirder than my upbringing, which was an extremely close knit family that shared parental duties, enabling various parents a weekend off? I was still surrounded my multiple adults? Do those adults need to be inter related? I think not.

What if there's a divorce, how does custody work? What happens with welfare and child support? If a child is neglected who is accountable?

I'm not opposed to these relationships on moral grounds, but they do get very tricky legally speaking.

sebster wrote:What if there's a divorce, how does custody work? What happens with welfare and child support? If a child is neglected who is accountable?

I'm not opposed to these relationships on moral grounds, but they do get very tricky legally speaking.

exactly. That was my point when i said...

whatwhat wrote:There are loads of people who have partners living in the same household as their wife. It's more to do with the rights involved with a marriage.

Ok... can we take the NAMBLA, polygamy discussions to another thread? Unless we are talking in a religious context(which I know polygamy can but the religious angle hasn't been mentioned yet) they are both fairly off topic.

thanks,

GG

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Not that all sure.

Lots of things have unforeseen impacts. But letting ourselves go silly and starting to predict the silliest, most fanciful futures is really no reason to deny a large number of people the right to stand up in front of their loved ones, get married and be miserable.

No thats not the silliest. Give me a minute and I'll think of something sillier.
High chance-no. Buts its something you have to watch for. thats the problem with using the law, precedent has unintended consequences, for good or bad.
I shouold note, from personal experience, I've been on the receiving end "there's no way a court could do that." I trust the US legal system as much as I trust the odds that Shuma is going to magically appear outside my window right now and we go cartwheeling down Main Street.

sebster wrote:

I have no issue with gay marriage. If I have to be married everyone should suffer...
I DO think that using courts to legalize gay marriage sets up unforeseen impacts.

Lots of things have unforeseen impacts. But letting ourselves go silly and starting to predict the silliest, most fanciful futures is really no reason to deny a large number of people the right to stand up in front of their loved ones, get married and be miserable.

Here's the thing: slippery slope arguments actually work pretty well in Law. If you get a court to say, for example, that banning primary education in any language other than english is a violation of people's ability to raise their children as they see fit. That is used as precdent against a law banning all contraception as discrimination because it interferes with their right to have or not have children. Then, you get a court to say that only allowing contraception to married couples discriminates needlessly against the class of non-married people. These arguments were all instrumental in creating the concept of Substantive due process, a mostly made up idea (although certainly a laudable one) that people have basic rights to self determination and family life that are not enumerated in the constitution. These arguments led to Roe v. Wade, and later Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So, in at least one line of cases, the right to have your kids taught in german lead to the right to have an abortion. By any measure, that's a pretty healthy stretch.

Speaking of Roe V. Wade, that's the exact reason we shouldn't rely on the courts to mandate gay marriage. When the court ruled on Roe, it galvanized opposition to abortion, removing it as a topic for political debate, and made it a major issue in the culture wars. I agree with the decision, but it's legally on pretty shaky ground and it's 37 years later, and the debate is still red hot. IMO, allowing gay marriage to become more socially acceptable and tolerated will allow states to begin authorizing it by law. If the nation trends to accepting homosexuality for another generation or two, DOMA will get nixed and then it simply becomes a matter of going to a state that allows gay marriage. Since all states want to money that the marriage industry brings in, they'll start changing the laws in a hurry.

generalgrog wrote:Ok... can we take the NAMBLA, polygamy discussions to another thread? Unless we are talking in a religious context(which I know polygamy can but the religious angle hasn't been mentioned yet) they are both fairly off topic.

thanks,

GG

Well, I suppose the argument has sort of become "why is homosexuality the whipping boy of the religious right," when even in scripture it's not notably worse than promiscuity, philandering, adultery, or a host of other things.

Yes, I know that the Right is theoretically against all of those things, but many of them are demonstrably bad, while homosexuality isn't, and my promiscuous lifestyle isn't attacked nearly as much as my gay friend's lifestyle.

I'm inclined to think that any three way relationship must be inherently uneven; three are after all a crowd. Therefore I don't think that polygamy could be included under any expanded marriage law.

I would describe myself as against gay marriage, chiefly because I am against the concept of marriage. I believe that a quasi-religious (by which I mean Christian) marriage law is flawed. I would not describe myself as opposed to gay and strait civil partnership laws being different or unequal in any way.

BTW: Are the multiple partner marriage groups in the US asking for any combination or number of people to be married or are they specifically asking for multiple wives?

About gay marriage, I had an aunt who was a lesbian, she was awesome. She was my favorite but she passed when I was 12. I didn't even know what lesbian was. But anywho I DON'T CARE about gay marriage, it doesn't affect me at all. Another one of my friends said this: "Technically gay rights are asking for an extra right. They already have the right to marry the opposite sex, but now they want the right to marry the same sex." I just thought this was hilarious and we all had a good laugh.

I think that the word marriage should be taken out of government as I think religion came to be around the same time as marriage and I think that everyone should just be given a certificate of domestic partnership.

Oh, and god,god,god,god!

Polonius wrote:my promiscuous lifestyle

Wow, Polonius is a playa!

Ozymandias wrote:

Polonius wrote:my promiscuous lifestyle

Wow, Polonius is a playa!

I do what I can. Or who I can, I suppose.

So yeah, this whole religious thing is fun. Its amazing that it escaped being locked so many times and its also amazing to see people getting along while offering different views and opinions. This is how the world should be, more like dakka.

halonachos wrote:So yeah, this whole religious thing is fun. Its amazing that it escaped being locked so many times and its also amazing to see people getting along while offering different views and opinions. This is how the world should be, more like dakka.

Maybe it will be...

Gee, Dakka, what are we going to do tonight?

The same thing we do every night, Warseer - try to take over the world!

Polonius wrote:Here's the thing: slippery slope arguments actually work pretty well in Law.

Thing is, a slippery slope fallacy isn’t merely saying one thing will lead to another. The idea that one thing will lead to another is kind of common sense, especially in law where precedent plays such an important part.

Something is a slippery slope fallacy when it assumes that each subsequent event is a given, or at least far more likely than it should be. If a person’s opposition to gay marriage is the chance that it’ll lead to paedophile marriage, it should be spelt out in no uncertain terms that the odds of legal paedophile marriage is stupidly, ridiculously, comically remote, and that if such a movement did arise it would be perfectly acceptable to oppose that on grounds entirely separate to gay marriage (legal age of consent anyone?)

I did offer gay adoption as an alternative, because the idea that legal gay marriage would lead to increased social acceptability of gay relationships is solid, and that in turn could increase the ease with which gay couples could adopt.

Speaking of Roe V. Wade, that's the exact reason we shouldn't rely on the courts to mandate gay marriage. When the court ruled on Roe, it galvanized opposition to abortion, removing it as a topic for political debate, and made it a major issue in the culture wars. I agree with the decision, but it's legally on pretty shaky ground and it's 37 years later, and the debate is still red hot. IMO, allowing gay marriage to become more socially acceptable and tolerated will allow states to begin authorizing it by law. If the nation trends to accepting homosexuality for another generation or two, DOMA will get nixed and then it simply becomes a matter of going to a state that allows gay marriage. Since all states want to money that the marriage industry brings in, they'll start changing the laws in a hurry.

It’s an interesting issue. I agree that a court solution isn’t ideal, better that it brought in through popular support at election. However, I don’t know that the politicisation and culture war around abortion was purely a result of its origin in a court ruling. There were folk keen to build the myth of the siege on Christian values, and abortion fit nicely. One of the major political parties was happy to use that support for political gain.

sebster wrote:
It’s an interesting issue. I agree that a court solution isn’t ideal, better that it brought in through popular support at election. However, I don’t know that the politicisation and culture war around abortion was purely a result of its origin in a court ruling. There were folk keen to build the myth of the siege on Christian values, and abortion fit nicely. One of the major political parties was happy to use that support for political gain.

Oh, the culture war isn't a result of the decision, but the decision made things far easier to paint in terms of activist judges, a liberal agenda, etc. Part of the problem now is that rather than being able to lobby government to change abortion laws, the groups that are committed tend to restrict themselves to lobbying during judicial appointmnets, or worse yet, to grass roots activism that plays out, at worst, in abortion clinic bombings and the protest/harassment of women going to abortion clinics.

I think that anung was trying to get us to get to a point in which we want to kill each other. He kept using "can't" alot in his O.P

Continueing my point on Gay Marriage and opening up Pandoras Box. Someone said that bestiality would not be excepted because it is illegal and that we don’t find dogs, cows, cat's and lions ect. entering into legal marriage contracts with one another. OK "yes" this is true. So what you are saying is forget those peoples rights who want to do this kind of behavior. And what about the secular groups that want to paractice polygamy ( marrying more than one person) this would be a contract between individuals right a contract that you had described earlier, basicaly for get there rights. or parents that sign off there 14 year old daughter too some Joe-smo to get married to, forget there rights also "huh". This is The BOX that you will be opeing. My point is where does it stop. iIs there NO line that we won't cross for individual freedoms and rights. What may be moral or unmoral to you and I may be perfectly moral to the other. There needs to be some ground rules or we will have total Chaos...

Greenlight1107 wrote:Continueing my point on Gay Marriage and opening up Pandoras Box. Someone said that bestiality would not be excepted because it is illegal and that we don’t find dogs, cows, cat's and lions ect. entering into legal marriage contracts with one another. OK "yes" this is true. So what you are saying is forget those peoples rights who want to do this kind of behavior. And what about the secular groups that want to paractice polygamy ( marrying more than one person) this would be a contract between individuals right a contract that you had described earlier, basicaly for get there rights. or parents that sign off there 14 year old daughter too some Joe-smo to get married to, forget there rights also "huh". This is The BOX that you will be opeing. My point is where does it stop. iIs there NO line that we won't cross for individual freedoms and rights. What may be moral or unmoral to you and I may be perfectly moral to the other. There needs to be some ground rules or we will have total Chaos...

I think if you read my posts, you'd actually see this very topic discussed pretty completely. You also have to keep in mind that there are many sources of law, so the way that Gay Marriage is made legal through court action has a different trajectory than if it's legalized by state law.

In terms of it simply being a state statute, passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor, the impediment to things like bestial marriages, polygamy, and child marriage lay with the people, just like any other decision. I think there are strongly distinguishable facts that separate gay marriage from the others, notably in terms of consent (neither children nor animals can legally consent to a marraige, although parent's may sign for their children and on their behalf) and in terms of social harm (polygamy isn't a good idea in a classless society). I know there are arguments for the social harm caused by gay marriage, but I think those are generally pretty weak and aren't supported by evidence the way, say, polygamy is.

Now, for the courts to rule that Gay marriage is a violation of equal protection, one of two legal arguments would need to succeed. One is that denying a person the right to choose their partner based on sex is gender discrimination. The courts would probably not listen, because the laws are full of discrimination based on gender. The other way is if a court is convinced that Homosexuality is an inherent and immutable characteristic, and laws that discriminate them are a violation of equal protection. The precedent here is that many states wouldn't allow non-marital children (bastards) to inherit by intestacy statutes. That was struck down, and illegitimacy is an immutable characteristic and there is no strong state reason to discriminate. There is, however, no protection for bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia.

Right now, the only states where Gay Marriage is legal are those in which law suits were filed based on State Constitutions, not the US constitution.

the problem with the slippery slope analogy here is that it relies on one of two things: either Gay Marriage being a social evil on it's own merits, or it being acceptable to deny people the right to marry because of potential social evils later on. The latter is simply unfair, and the former is I think one of the central divides in the culture wars. I argue, and I think I can successfully, that homosexuality in general and Gay Marriage in particular is not inherently immoral or a danger to society.

Polonius: Ok Let me make my position on the whole idea of it (This being a religious thread and all ) The bible does state man shall not lay with man. But if you take the sex out of homosexuality what do you have? A relationship, a friendship per say. I'm a guy who has had a friendship for six years with my two Guy buddies, if we had sex it would be a gay relationship. But thank God we don't that would be just plain gay which I'm not !!!! So just because homosexuals have a weird sexual fetish doesn't mean they should be granted same rights as man and woman.

Honestly I don't understand your second argument. But marriage was created for one purpose-- procreation.
AS IN the ability to have children is necessary to build a family. I agree with most of you, that legalizing gay marriage does not mean people will wake up and decide to be gay. However this is not a factor focused on in our up coming propositions. If you choose to be gay, be gay. It doesn't affect me. But I'm saying is for once we need to define marriage, this will help institute a foundation in our state. If we allow gay marriage we would surely see its effects.

Finally, the constitution is written "under God". God's doctrine states marriage is only valid between man and woman. We as a people have a right to vote on the issues. When it went to cout in various states such as California, the people voted, by changing this it would undermining the people's power of vote. The people spoke.

Leave the decision to the people. and they have made their decision. We Don't Want It!!!!

No, leave the decision to those it affects. They want it.

Also, calling homosexuality a 'weird sexual fetish' is insulting, childish and hideously outdated.

Also, homosexuality isn't some 'choice' people make. As someone said earlier, could you choose to be gay? No, if you're straight, you're straight. If you're gay, you're gay. And a million shades of grey inbetween.

The whole argument of behavioral VS genetics is still argumentative in it's self. What do you say to thousand of indivduals who thought they were gay and then realized they were not. Many people realize or think as early as age 11, 12, 13 that they are struggling with there sexuality and gender identity, many people live as a lesbian or gay until their adult and soon change or become disillusioned with their homosexual life and want to change.

Many people have come to make this decision. This is a process of many years, or several years for people going to counseling, professional counseling, connecting with Christian ministries or other help that they may receive to understand themselves which has helped many. If you talk with these men and women who had been on a similar journey, and was able to work through the issues in their life that contributed to homosexuality they will tell you that there decision to become gay was because of their mental issues, and are proud to say that they are now "Ex-Gay"
Now I say if it is not behavioral and is genetics, how is it possible for someone to change their sexual orientation? I know people who have changed from gay to straight? This was there "CHOICE" So yes I think people choose to be Gay..... On another note what answer do you have for those who are bisexual were they born to to sleep with every one genetics um" I think not i'm going to lean more towards behavioral..