Gay Marriage and the law of unintended consequences...

Thoran · 12-03-2003, 10:20 AM

A week or two ago when the decision in Maryland regarding Gay Marriage came out, I recall having a brief debate with my wife regarding the dangers of the decision. As I thought about it I knew the idea bothered me, but we both have gay friends and they're all great people... why shouldn't they be afforded all the rights of other couples in long term relationships? In the end, I concluded that my concern isn't so much with the idea of Gays being married (or legally partnered or whatever you want to call it), but rather with the resulting weakening of the concept of "Marrige" that would result from stretching a term that has meant "man and woman" for a very long time. Once you step away from this limited definition... where does the stepping stop? I framed this question with a problem for my wife (who was holding the position that there's nothing at all wrong with the idea of Gay marriage, and it should be allowed). "What is the difference between allowing gay men to marry and allowing polygamy?". The answer: not much. In the first case we're changing "a man and women" to "two loving partners"... in the second case we're changing "two loving partners" to "two or more loving partners".

And just to prove that I'm not the only human capable of connecting 1 and 1 to get 2... this article pops out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/0....ap/index.html

Jen tried to argue that Gay marriage would still be between two people and thus was different than polygamy... but that's a red herring. Gay Marrige is different from traditional marriage too, yet our courts have determined that they can't say it's wrong, so from what position can the courts choose to say that one difference is fine and another is not. They seem to be saying that our government should not be in the business of defining and ordering the private lives of people... but if that's the case then how do they justify anti-polygamy laws. Seems to me they can't.

Now I'm assuming all parties are consenting adults, what happens the first time a polygamist goes to Maryland courts using the Gay ruling as prescedent to say the courts should stay out of thier private life?

What comes after that... lonely old women marrying their cats? [img]smile.gif[/img]

pritchke · 12-03-2003, 10:31 AM

Here is what I think, why get bent out of shape about gay marriage. People have been weakening the concept of marriage for quite some time now. People have affairs all the time, get divorced, separated etc. This weakens the concept of marriage does it not? Yet the same people who are fighting gay marriage do not stand up against these things so "the weakening of marriage" is a pretty lame excuse when battling gay marriage. You have brides deciding that they don't wish to get married yet they will wait until after the wedding to let everyone know because the groom is paying. Does this strengthen the concept of marriage? I think not, if you wish to battle gay marriage then battle these issues first as they are far more damaging to the concept of marriage than a gay couple who actually spends there life together. In the end the lawyers win.

[ 12-03-2003, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

the new JR Jansen · 12-03-2003, 10:34 AM

Well, here's my take on things. As long as it's between concenting aduls, i have no problem with anything. Not with normal marriage, gay marrige, polygamy, whatever.

People marrying a cat is different because an animal can not be seen as concenting. Child marriages are different also because they are not adults and in most casses are not concenting.

Timber Loftis · 12-03-2003, 10:53 AM

In one sense marriage *should* be abolished in the secular sense. Make it a religion-only thing. Force people who want to share LEGAL benefits of partnering to form corporations or partnerships, or execute powers of attorney for each other. That gets rid of ALL this poppycock. After all, secular marriage is a set of legal rights, whereas the concept of love, etc. is religious marriage. Yes, the cermonies establishing each is combined in one "wedding," but let us not forget to separate the secular/legal part from the spiritual/religious part.

Brief note -- it was Mass. that decided the case, not Maryland.

Here is what everyone is getting wrong about this case. It DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT say "gay marriage" was required, but rather that the benefits of marriage should be provided to gay couples. Hey, I don't blame anybody for getting it wrong, since even The Economist screwed it up. Anyway, it need not be called "marriage" and the "civil union" term used in Vermont could be adopted. Hell, we could call it "Bob" or "Cohabitation in Sin Licenses" in fact. The Court was VERY clear on this, and dropped a footnote to explain it need not be "called" marriage. After all, as far as legal rights are concerned, there isn't much in a name -- a rose is a rose no matter what it's called. That doesn't make good press, so all the newspapers got it wrong, but don't be fooled.

Sir Taliesin · 12-03-2003, 12:20 PM

Call it a Civil Union and put Marriage back in the church were it belongs. EVERYONE should have a Civil Union with all the same rights. Then if you belong to a church and want to get married in front of your favorite Diety, get married in a religious ceremony in front of a Priest/Minister/Paster.

Thoran · 12-03-2003, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Brief note -- it was Mass. that decided the case, not Maryland.

Those 'M' states all look the same to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Here is what everyone is getting wrong about this case. It DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT say "gay marriage" was required, but rather that the benefits of marriage should be provided to gay couples.

Makes sense... and personally I agree with it, but again that raises the question, if same sex unions are the same as hetero unions, why not polygamy? Why not two couples who like each other SOO MUCH that they want to (all 4) get married? If M/F has nothing magical about it, and M/M or F/F is fine, then why not M/F/F, F/M/M, or even M/M/F/F. Hell if a really good friends wife works for the gubberment, you and your wife could marry him and his wife to get the sweet med. benefits! All these permutations seem just as valid to me once you say that M/F holds no special place in society.

Timber Loftis · 12-03-2003, 12:46 PM

The legislature is free to decide that a binary partnering union, presumably for life and for the purpose of creating nuclear families, shall have benefits while a non-binary union shall not. And, this is exactly how this will play out in every state. Believe me, I had to research the heck outta this to answer the legislative committees' questions in Vermont. They asked the same thing.

On the topic of polygamy, the US busted up the Mormon church and seized all its property until it promised to forego polygamy. The Supreme Court directly attacked the practice, calling it "pernicious" "repugnant" and a slew of other things.

The requirements for marriage can be freely set so long as it does not offend the constitution. Blood tests, prohibitations on consanguinity, and other requirements may be set, but the legislature could also require the couple live together for 9mos/yr or that they be a certain age, or a bunch of other things.

What the legislature cannot do is dole out legal benefits to one couple while not doling them out to another couple on the sole basis of the couple's gender makeup. What that does is fail to provide the "equal protections" of the law to all people regardless of gender.

[ 12-03-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Luvian · 12-03-2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thoran:
Makes sense... and personally I agree with it, but again that raises the question, if same sex unions are the same as hetero unions, why not polygamy? Why not two couples who like each other SOO MUCH that they want to (all 4) get married? If M/F has nothing magical about it, and M/M or F/F is fine, then why not M/F/F, F/M/M, or even M/M/F/F. Hell if a really good friends wife works for the gubberment, you and your wife could marry him and his wife to get the sweet med. benefits! All these permutations seem just as valid to me once you say that M/F holds no special place in society.

And what if multiple person want to mary each others? What give you o rme the right to decide their life for them?

People do marry for benefits. That's nothing new.

Night Stalker · 12-03-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thoran:
Makes sense... and personally I agree with it, but again that raises the question, if same sex unions are the same as hetero unions, why not polygamy? Why not two couples who like each other SOO MUCH that they want to (all 4) get married? If M/F has nothing magical about it, and M/M or F/F is fine, then why not M/F/F, F/M/M, or even M/M/F/F. Hell if a really good friends wife works for the gubberment, you and your wife could marry him and his wife to get the sweet med. benefits! All these permutations seem just as valid to me once you say that M/F holds no special place in society.

Ummmm .... yeah .... so what? What's your point? Why does the Gubmint need to curtail the liberties of consenting adults? To assuage the egos of closed minded people? If you are worried about the errosion of the 'sanctity of marriage', don't go looking at gay people. If anything they tend to show higher committment rates. Blame the "Me-ism" permeating society. Blame short attention spans. Blame "keeping up with the Jones'" that require two people in a relationship to work insane hours to maintain a standard of living that one person working for $30,000 /yr used to acheive 25 yrs ago.

Don't let homophobia blame "those people" though. Don't keep asking the Gubmint to legislate the private activities of consenting adults. Don't let insurance companies confuse the mix.

And why, WHY must people against 'Gay Marriage' always make the claim "If you let this happen, next you'll have people wanting to marry animals"?!?! What kind of mind makes this leap? How do you add 2+2 and get poppycock? Freud would have a field day with this line of thinking.

[ 12-03-2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Thoran · 12-03-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Night Stalker:
Ummmm .... yeah .... so what? What's your point? Why does the Gubmint need to curtail the liberties of consenting adults? To assuage the egos of closed minded people? If you are worried about the errosion of the 'sanctity of marriage', don't go looking at gay people. If anything they tend to show higher committment rates. Blame the "Me-ism" permeating society. Blame short attention spans. Blame "keeping up with the Jones'" that require two people in a relationship to work insane hours to maintain a standard of living that one person working for $30,000 /yr used to acheive 25 yrs ago.

Don't let homophobia blame "those people" though. Don't keep asking the Gubmint to legislate the private activities of consenting adults. Don't let insurance companies confuse the mix.

And why, WHY must people against 'Gay Marriage' always make the claim "If you let this happen, next you'll have people wanting to marry animals"?!?! What kind of mind makes this leap? How do you add 2+2 and get poppycock? Freud would have a field day with this line of thinking.

Ummm... yea... so was there an response to the posed question buried in the above preaching? Let me check again... nope don't see it.

I don't recall mentioning sanctity of marriage at all... I'm simply looking at a dilution of the concept of a legal partnership from "man and female" to "any binary permutation". I'm asking the question "why binary?"... it's just as valid a question to pose as "why hetero?". Why indeed does the gubberment need to curtail the liberties of consenting adults? (say for instance... THREE consenting adults) Is it to assuage the ego's of closed minded people, seems to me that's just as valid a pointless ad hominim whether it's gays or polygamists you're discussing. HECK, think how much easier it would be to keep up with the Jonses if you had three wage earners in the family, and a short attention span might be a benefit if you've got two or more partners to divide your time between.

I asked the question because I believe this decision is based on the "morals of the moment" P.C. attitude of our "morally relative" society. We're tossing out a standard that's been around for a long time based on a couple decades of "social reengineering". I think anyone who thinks it's OK for gays to marry but that polygamy is wrong is a hypocrite. Personally I think if 'non-traditional' legal partnerships are to be accepted, they should ALL be accepted. I would draw the line at "between humans" but many of the same positions that were put forward to support gay unions could be put forward to support ANY union that doesn't fit our traditional concept of "marriage" or "partnership"... and THAT'S the reason poeple bring up "marrying animals", it's because that's the logical end of a "slippery slope" line of thinking that begins when you step away from the traditional Male/Female union (although inanimate objects might be the true logical end). You take an idea and ride it to it's rediculous conclusion, because once the ball is rolling there will be people who'll want to keep it rolling. Someone WILL challenge the "binary" nature of partnerships, and while the feline question was more a silly extreme... there's a LOT of strange and silly people out there. It's the equivelant of asking the question "Where exactly is the stop sign once we start making changes here."

12-03-2003, 10:34 AM	#3
the new JR Jansen Drizzt Do'Urden Join Date: May 8, 2002 Location: chocolate land Age: 49 Posts: 696	Well, here's my take on things. As long as it's between concenting aduls, i have no problem with anything. Not with normal marriage, gay marrige, polygamy, whatever. People marrying a cat is different because an animal can not be seen as concenting. Child marriages are different also because they are not adults and in most casses are not concenting. __________________ JR<br /><br /><br /><br />It\'s me. The guy with the cloak big enough for a fire giant and the long nose.<br />Owner of the most visited woodshed in Ironworks\' history.

12-03-2003, 10:53 AM	#4
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	In one sense marriage should be abolished in the secular sense. Make it a religion-only thing. Force people who want to share LEGAL benefits of partnering to form corporations or partnerships, or execute powers of attorney for each other. That gets rid of ALL this poppycock. After all, secular marriage is a set of legal rights, whereas the concept of love, etc. is religious marriage. Yes, the cermonies establishing each is combined in one "wedding," but let us not forget to separate the secular/legal part from the spiritual/religious part. Brief note -- it was Mass. that decided the case, not Maryland. Here is what everyone is getting wrong about this case. It DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT say "gay marriage" was required, but rather that the benefits of marriage should be provided to gay couples. Hey, I don't blame anybody for getting it wrong, since even The Economist screwed it up. Anyway, it need not be called "marriage" and the "civil union" term used in Vermont could be adopted. Hell, we could call it "Bob" or "Cohabitation in Sin Licenses" in fact. The Court was VERY clear on this, and dropped a footnote to explain it need not be "called" marriage. After all, as far as legal rights are concerned, there isn't much in a name -- a rose is a rose no matter what it's called. That doesn't make good press, so all the newspapers got it wrong, but don't be fooled. __________________

12-03-2003, 12:20 PM	#5
Sir Taliesin Silver Dragon Join Date: March 4, 2001 Location: Knoxville, TN USA Age: 60 Posts: 1,641	Call it a Civil Union and put Marriage back in the church were it belongs. EVERYONE should have a Civil Union with all the same rights. Then if you belong to a church and want to get married in front of your favorite Diety, get married in a religious ceremony in front of a Priest/Minister/Paster. __________________ Sir Taliesin<br /><br />Hello... Good bye.

12-03-2003, 12:46 PM	#7
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	The legislature is free to decide that a binary partnering union, presumably for life and for the purpose of creating nuclear families, shall have benefits while a non-binary union shall not. And, this is exactly how this will play out in every state. Believe me, I had to research the heck outta this to answer the legislative committees' questions in Vermont. They asked the same thing. On the topic of polygamy, the US busted up the Mormon church and seized all its property until it promised to forego polygamy. The Supreme Court directly attacked the practice, calling it "pernicious" "repugnant" and a slew of other things. The requirements for marriage can be freely set so long as it does not offend the constitution. Blood tests, prohibitations on consanguinity, and other requirements may be set, but the legislature could also require the couple live together for 9mos/yr or that they be a certain age, or a bunch of other things. What the legislature cannot do is dole out legal benefits to one couple while not doling them out to another couple on the sole basis of the couple's gender makeup. What that does is fail to provide the "equal protections" of the law to all people regardless of gender. [ 12-03-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Arnika bank robbery - negative consequences?	Marmot	Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not)	3	01-26-2004 03:34 AM
Critical miss - any consequences?	InsaneBane	Baldurs Gate & Tales of the Sword Coast	7	02-04-2003 04:11 PM
Romance and the consequences of Kangaxx - Spoilers	Big Gay Al	Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal	5	03-07-2002 10:29 PM
Q about XP cap remover consequences	Nix	Baldurs Gate II Archives	1	10-29-2001 03:41 AM
Alignment & Consequences	NiamhFoxling	Baldurs Gate II Archives	4	09-01-2001 11:07 AM

12-03-2003, 10:20 AM	#1
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 56 Posts: 2,109	A week or two ago when the decision in Maryland regarding Gay Marriage came out, I recall having a brief debate with my wife regarding the dangers of the decision. As I thought about it I knew the idea bothered me, but we both have gay friends and they're all great people... why shouldn't they be afforded all the rights of other couples in long term relationships? In the end, I concluded that my concern isn't so much with the idea of Gays being married (or legally partnered or whatever you want to call it), but rather with the resulting weakening of the concept of "Marrige" that would result from stretching a term that has meant "man and woman" for a very long time. Once you step away from this limited definition... where does the stepping stop? I framed this question with a problem for my wife (who was holding the position that there's nothing at all wrong with the idea of Gay marriage, and it should be allowed). "What is the difference between allowing gay men to marry and allowing polygamy?". The answer: not much. In the first case we're changing "a man and women" to "two loving partners"... in the second case we're changing "two loving partners" to "two or more loving partners". And just to prove that I'm not the only human capable of connecting 1 and 1 to get 2... this article pops out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/0....ap/index.html Jen tried to argue that Gay marriage would still be between two people and thus was different than polygamy... but that's a red herring. Gay Marrige is different from traditional marriage too, yet our courts have determined that they can't say it's wrong, so from what position can the courts choose to say that one difference is fine and another is not. They seem to be saying that our government should not be in the business of defining and ordering the private lives of people... but if that's the case then how do they justify anti-polygamy laws. Seems to me they can't. Now I'm assuming all parties are consenting adults, what happens the first time a polygamist goes to Maryland courts using the Gay ruling as prescedent to say the courts should stay out of thier private life? What comes after that... lonely old women marrying their cats? [img]smile.gif[/img]

12-03-2003, 10:31 AM	#2
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 49 Posts: 3,491	Here is what I think, why get bent out of shape about gay marriage. People have been weakening the concept of marriage for quite some time now. People have affairs all the time, get divorced, separated etc. This weakens the concept of marriage does it not? Yet the same people who are fighting gay marriage do not stand up against these things so "the weakening of marriage" is a pretty lame excuse when battling gay marriage. You have brides deciding that they don't wish to get married yet they will wait until after the wedding to let everyone know because the groom is paying. Does this strengthen the concept of marriage? I think not, if you wish to battle gay marriage then battle these issues first as they are far more damaging to the concept of marriage than a gay couple who actually spends there life together. In the end the lawyers win. [ 12-03-2003, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

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