or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 136

post #2026 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

This is not net neutrality.

Neither is letting the government control the Internet, which is what I was trying to explain for the last three years. But would you people listen? Noooooo.
post #2027 of 5110
The argument before the Supreme Court on the gay marriage issue was really pathetic.


TRIGGER WARNING: Monogamous privilege
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.

Alito: What would be the reason?

Bonauto: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because—

Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, I didn't understand your answer.

Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one –

Bonauto: No, no.

Alito: -- then you can come back to mine.

Bonauto: Well, that's what -- I mean, that is -- I mean, the State –

Alito: Well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?

Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –

Alito: But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no -- why is that a greater break?

Bonauto: The question is one of--again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that.

Terrible oral argument. I mean rule 1 is you never try to move away from a question from the panel, you have to answer the question to their satisfaction, period.
post #2028 of 5110
What is interesting in this case is that we now define people by behavior.



***************TRIGGER WARNING: CIS privilege with heteronormative overtones*******************************
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Sexual preferences or compulsions now create a class of people entitled to equal protection. This line of reasoning could lead to some very entertaining cases once Pandora's box is open.
post #2029 of 5110
I have been asking the pro-gay marriage crowd if they support polygamous marriages for as long as this has been going on. They have always just deflected with either "Stop trying to stop equality for gays" or "Marriage is between two people."

I don't understand. If two dudes want to get married, I don't care, but if that holds, why can't I have a harem of wives (other than I rather kill myself).
post #2030 of 5110
Thread Starter 
This is why I back plural marriage: there is no argument against plural marriage that is any different from the various arguments against gay marriage, and before that, against miscegenation.
post #2031 of 5110
This is why I'm against all marriage.
post #2032 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

This is why I'm against all state marriage.

Fixed for me.

My wife and I were once talking about marriage with a gay couple we know, and one of them asked, "how would you feel if the government told you it doesn't recognize your marriage." We both went, "who cares what the government thinks of our marriage?"

Our marriage is ours, and it's not legitimized by the government. I find it sad that some people feel like their relationship isn't "real" without the approval of the leviathan.
post #2033 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I have been asking the pro-gay marriage crowd if they support polygamous marriages for as long as this has been going on. They have always just deflected with either "Stop trying to stop equality for gays" or "Marriage is between two people."

I don't understand. If two dudes want to get married, I don't care, but if that holds, why can't I have a harem of wives (other than I rather kill myself).

Is there a logical argument for **TRIGGER WARNING NORMATIVE HETERO-TRADITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS REFERENCE** Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
one-man-one-woman marriage
that doesn't extend to polygamous marriage?
post #2034 of 5110
Doesn't it depend on how far back you want to track that logic? From first principle, maybe we can't find a reason to argue against polygamy. But extending marriage to gays is a relatively simple question, they just get the same rights as straight couples with basically no changes. Extending marriage to polygamous couples would require rethinking how we handle custody, inheritance, divorce, alimony, etc. It's not clear how you rectify the legal structure that would be required for polygamy with monogamous marriage. Those questions don't come up for gays.


**TRIGGER WARNING MONOGAMOUS-NORMATIVE THOUGHTS AND RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY** Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Also, you know, there's not really any demand for polygamous marriage outside a small community of weirdos in and around Utah who have very little public support. Is there going to be any actual public pressure to make that happen? Doesn't seem likely[/quote]
post #2035 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Fixed for me.

My wife and I were once talking about marriage with a gay couple we know, and one of them asked, "how would you feel if the government told you it doesn't recognize your marriage." We both went, "who cares what the government thinks of our marriage?"

Our marriage is ours, and it's not legitimized by the government. I find it sad that some people feel like their relationship isn't "real" without the approval of the leviathan.

The legal benefits are actually useful for a long term committed couple though. All the reasons gays want legal marriage are pretty much the real benefits. Who gives a shit if the government calls it "marriage" or not, but all the stuff like streamlining custody, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc, is good to have available in a neat package.
post #2036 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The legal benefits are actually useful for a long term committed couple though. All the reasons gays want legal marriage are pretty much the real benefits. Who gives a shit if the government calls it "marriage" or not, but all the stuff like streamlining custody, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc, is good to have available in a neat package.

The people who have been lobbying for gay marriage certainly seem to give a shit if it's marriage or not. There's a reason we're not talking about gay civil unions.

The practicalities can be addressed with little more than a sheet of paper.

I think one interesting approach is the one Oklahoma proposed - you get married by the officiant of your choosing, and the state does nothing more than file the paperwork. If the priest, judge, etc. says you're married, you're good.
post #2037 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Fixed for me.

That's absolutely fair, I should have added that.
post #2038 of 5110
What they really want is the government to force everyone to call them married.
post #2039 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

What they really want is the government to force everyone to call them married.
True as far as it goes, but the real question is whether that's a privilege we extend only to male-female couples or whether we extend it to same sex couples as well (or to nobody at all).
post #2040 of 5110
In other words, they want the government to force other people to accept their concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

Does Anthony Kennedy realize this?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob