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 137

post #2041 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

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 #2042 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

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

So because those impacted are mostly "weirdos" that are primarily concentrated in one area that makes their rights less important? How large is the gay population? 3%?

The state shouldn't be involved period. Things like divorce/custody/alimony would still be litigated over with because we don't want the birdman to lose his job. For other things like medical decisions, it would seem to me any spouse could act as power of attorney in that situation, but smart people would setup legal documents for the matter. There are similar problems in monogamous marriages today. Look at Terry Shivo or others where the courts get involved because people sue over power of attorney.

The point is any group of consenting adults should be able to go to the statehouse or court or wherever, and file paperwork that says they are some arbitrary unit and that those people have certain rights for things like inheritance, power of attorney, etc. Then we go to a flat-tax with a standard deduction and eliminate the death tax - this alone is half the argument that gay couples use.
post #2043 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

So because those impacted are mostly "weirdos" that are primarily concentrated in one area that makes their rights less important?.
So because straw men look weird we're free to attack them with impunity?

The vast majority of people who try to make the poly argument are not doing so because they giving a flying fuck about the rights of folks interested in polygamous marriage, but because they're grasping at any bullshit argument they can (in this case, a fear-mongering slippery slope argument) to oppose legal recognition for same sex marriages. If you're cool with same sex marriage, why insist on posing the poly question as a challenge to other same-sex marriage supporters rather than challenging those who trot out the "threat" of a slippery slope to polygamous marriage as a reason to deny legal recognition to same sex marriages?

I think all credible estimates (admittedly, that's all they are) have the gay population being a much bigger percentage of the total population than that, for whatever it's worth.
post #2044 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

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.

Clarification, who gives a shit so long as it's the same word for everybody. I understand entirely not wanting a separate "gay marriage" classification.
post #2045 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Clarification, who gives a shit so long as it's the same word for everybody. I understand entirely not wanting a separate "gay marriage" classification.

"The triumph of hope over experience."
smile.gif
post #2046 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

So because those impacted are mostly "weirdos" that are primarily concentrated in one area that makes their rights less important? How large is the gay population? 3%?

In practical terms, of course it matters. The court doesn't operate in a vacuum, public pressure and concern heavily drive what questions they're willing to address. The court isn't going to look at polygamy so long as it's only a concern for an extreme fringe of American society.

Gays aren't that large a fraction of the population, but they're all over the place. It's not an isolated issue. Anybody with a little perspective could see their own child being affected by these problems.

This doesn't change the moral correctness of the question, but again, it significantly alters the practical considerations.

**TRIGGER WARNING: LIBERTOPIAN FANTASY** Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
The state shouldn't be involved period. Things like divorce/custody/alimony would still be litigated over with because we don't want the birdman to lose his job. For other things like medical decisions, it would seem to me any spouse could act as power of attorney in that situation, but smart people would setup legal documents for the matter. There are similar problems in monogamous marriages today. Look at Terry Shivo or others where the courts get involved because people sue over power of attorney.

The point is any group of consenting adults should be able to go to the statehouse or court or wherever, and file paperwork that says they are some arbitrary unit and that those people have certain rights for things like inheritance, power of attorney, etc. Then we go to a flat-tax with a standard deduction and eliminate the death tax - this alone is half the argument that gay couples use.
post #2047 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

So because straw men look weird we're free to attack them with impunity?

The vast majority of people who try to make the poly argument are not doing so because they giving a flying fuck about the rights of folks interested in polygamous marriage, but because they're grasping at any bullshit argument they can (in this case, a fear-mongering slippery slope argument) to oppose legal recognition for same sex marriages. If you're cool with same sex marriage, why insist on posing the poly question as a challenge to other same-sex marriage supporters rather than challenging those who trot out the "threat" of a slippery slope to polygamous marriage as a reason to deny legal recognition to same sex marriages?

I think all credible estimates (admittedly, that's all they are) have the gay population being a much bigger percentage of the total population than that, for whatever it's worth.

The reason I call out the pro-gay marriage crowd on it is because of the hypocrisy. I don't think most of them are actually fighting for equal rights, but rather they are fighting for special treatment of a favored group (a special treatment another group already gets). The religious right believe that marriage is one man - one woman. Period. No exceptions. If people I know use the polyamorous argument to argue against gay marriage, I'll call them out on it.

Like MrG, I don't care if the state recognizes my marriage - the state's recognition doesn't legitimize it to me (and if it didn't I'd probably be in a better tax position).

As to the percentage, it doesn't matter if it is 0 or 100% it is a non-sequitor. My point there was gays are a minority, so using the fact that polygamists are a minority is a losing argument.
post #2048 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Things like divorce/custody/alimony would still be litigated over with because we don't want the birdman to lose his job.

Don't worry about me, I've got plenty of DUI and kid toucher clients to bilk out of their retirement.

Like seriously, I have become the go-to-guy for kid touching and child porn in all of Pennsylvania. I get queries from other attorneys all the time about how to handle cases.

EDIT - transcript is coming. I still can't belieber I got away with that during jury selection.
post #2049 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

**TRIGGER WARNING: LIBERTOPIAN FANTASY** Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

It is a libertarian fantasy, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the rights of gay people are repressed because of the consequences of other stupid government actions or laws. This is similar to the treatments of other minorities throughout history.
post #2050 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Don't worry about me, I've got plenty of DUI and kid toucher clients to bilk out of their retirement.

Like seriously, I have become the go-to-guy for kid touching and child porn in all of Pennsylvania. I get queries from other attorneys all the time about how to handle cases.

EDIT - transcript is coming. I still can't belieber I got away with that during jury selection.
post #2051 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

The reason I call out the pro-gay marriage crowd on it is because of the hypocrisy. I don't think most of them are actually fighting for equal rights, but rather they are fighting for special treatment of a favored group (a special treatment another group already gets). The religious right believe that marriage is one man - one woman. Period. No exceptions. If people I know use the polyamorous argument to argue against gay marriage, I'll call them out on it.

Like MrG, I don't care if the state recognizes my marriage - the state's recognition doesn't legitimize it to me (and if it didn't I'd probably be in a better tax position).

As to the percentage, it doesn't matter if it is 0 or 100% it is a non-sequitor. My point there was gays are a minority, so using the fact that polygamists are a minority is a losing argument.

It's no more hypocrisy than people challenging miscegenation laws but not simultaneously fighting for same sex marriage were hypocrites.

There are actually very practical reasons -- already noted in this thread -- for treated unions between two people differently from unions among three or more. Those reasons are mostly practical and are may be more implementation challenges than moral differences, but people who find them significant aren't necessarily hypocrites. Also, while your questions may come from an intellectually honest place, you're smart enough to know that 98% percent of the people who ask the questions you're asking are basically trolling. It's not surprising that the instinctive reaction is formany people to respond in the negative given that background. I suspect most haven't devoted a lot of careful thought to the poly question, largely for the reasons Gib has articulated.
post #2052 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

The reason I call out the pro-gay marriage crowd on it is because of the hypocrisy. I don't think most of them are actually fighting for equal rights, but rather they are fighting for special treatment of a favored group (a special treatment another group already gets). The religious right believe that marriage is one man - one woman. Period. No exceptions. If people I know use the polyamorous argument to argue against gay marriage, I'll call them out on it.

People aren't arguing these issue in a political theory rhetoric class. Turning it into a broad first-principles argument would, in practical terms, doom any chance of making actual changes.
Quote:
As to the percentage, it doesn't matter if it is 0 or 100% it is a non-sequitor. My point there was gays are a minority, so using the fact that polygamists are a minority is a losing argument.

As above, it's only a non-sequitor if you're trying to make an abstract argument. From a legal and practical standpoint, it is entirely relevant.

Hell, the only reason anyone even bothers to bring up polygamists is as a proxy for the gay rights argument.
post #2053 of 5333
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

It is a libertarian fantasy, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the rights of gay people are repressed because of the consequences of other stupid government actions or laws. This is similar to the treatments of other minorities throughout history.

I don't really do the libertopia discuss anymore, because A) it's never going to happen B) the framework is so far removed from anything that exists that it's really impossible to say what the real outcome would be. Can't really get myself interested in it these days. Yes, "government power can be used to repress minorities" is an issue. But that doesn't logically lead to "ergo remove all government power and things will be better," without a previously standing libertarian ideology.
post #2054 of 5333
Thread Starter 
For me the reason to present the poly case is two fold:

1) Is it not disingenuous of a person arguing against discrimination in marriage to argue for discrimination in marriage for another group of people? It's hard to believe the lawyer does not have a double standard.

2) It is just to test the initial concept that marriage is not one man, one woman. To deny that has been our tradition for many centuries is spurious, so if you want to change it for one group you better damn well be able to defend why we cannot change it even more or accept that we should change it more.

Lastly, a "right" should not be based on % of population. It either is or is not. /Yoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

So because straw men look weird we're free to attack them with impunity?

The vast majority of people who try to make the poly argument are not doing so because they giving a flying fuck about the rights of folks interested in polygamous marriage, but because they're grasping at any bullshit argument they can (in this case, a fear-mongering slippery slope argument) to oppose legal recognition for same sex marriages. If you're cool with same sex marriage, why insist on posing the poly question as a challenge to other same-sex marriage supporters rather than challenging those who trot out the "threat" of a slippery slope to polygamous marriage as a reason to deny legal recognition to same sex marriages?

I think all credible estimates (admittedly, that's all they are) have the gay population being a much bigger percentage of the total population than that, for whatever it's worth.
post #2055 of 5333
After marriage, there are very few functioning institutions left. The church, family, Boy Scouts, higher education, and corporate America have been damaged. Our left leg is still somewhat strong (Aristotle, Enlightenment), but our right leg has atrophied (Judeo-Christian religious tradition). We are in the process of falling down.

And the bonus:

What institution are we left with? In who shall we put our faith?




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