Oh yay, another political thread! (Prop 8, gay marriage stuff)

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

To go further, and I still stand by what I originally said....BUT

What if the majority vote to deny a basic right to a certain part of the public [***s here, others elsewhere]? When does it draw the line where the government must step in to maintain it's duty to restore equity under the law? It's a slippery slope with no real correct answer I guess. What about polygamists? Just figured I'd play devil's advocate for a sec.

It certainly would be. The problem is we're not letting anyone maintain a legally binding relationship with multiples.

There wouldn't be any precedent for equality here. Equality will always be that; equal. No ones allowed to have multiple partners, so it is equal under the law.

Whats not equal here is that people aren't allowed to marry other people based on preference. If you prefer to marry another human, who's the government to tell you who it should be. Further more, why should the government be involved period?

[Double X]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

To go further, and I still stand by what I originally said....BUT

What if the majority vote to deny a basic right to a certain part of the public [***s here, others elsewhere]? When does it draw the line where the government must step in to maintain it's duty to restore equity under the law? It's a slippery slope with no real correct answer I guess. What about polygamists? Just figured I'd play devil's advocate for a sec.

The government should be stepping in to make sure equality is established in freedoms to marriage. Clear case here.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

It certainly would be. The problem is we're not letting anyone maintain a legally binding relationship with a person of the same sex.

There wouldn't be any precedent for equality here. Equality will always be that; equal. No ones allowed to have a partner of the same sex, so it is equal under the law.

Hmmm...interesting what I did there. Isn't it the same? No one is allowed to do it, therefore we are all equal by that logic, correct?

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Hmmm...interesting what I did there. Isn't it the same? No one is allowed to do it, therefore we are all equal by that logic, correct?

with regard to polygamy?

Yes...

[Freebase Dali]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Hmmm...interesting what I did there. Isn't it the same? No one is allowed to do it, therefore we are all equal by that logic, correct?

It's not equality when the homosexual population is denied the right to marry who they want to marry.
I don't understand how that's unclear.

If we think equal rights is only applicable to a particular percentage of the population, then we've got our definition of equality wrong.
If we generally say that no one can marry the same sex, regardless of gender, then we're willfully and knowingly discriminating against homosexuality.

[sleepy jack]

Equating polygamy with homosexuality is just stupid. It's literally the definition of apples and oranges. It isn't a biological condition to only be attracted to/have relationships with multiple partners at the same time all of whom you're legally married to.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by Veridical Fiction

It's not equality when the homosexual population is denied the right to marry who they want to marry.
I don't understand how that's unclear.

If we think equal rights is only applicable to a particular percentage of the population, then we've got our definition of equality wrong.
If we generally say that no one can marry the same sex, regardless of gender, then we're willfully and knowingly discriminating against homosexuality.

And why is it equal if homosexuals are allowed to marry who they wish but a polygamist wouldn't be able to [which in this case would obviously be multiple people]? If we don't allow it, aren't we willingly discriminating against polygamy? There are no consent or medical reasons for it being illegal, just some sort of religious dogma. I have no idea how you can say that equality should apply to homosexuals and not polygamists.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Equating polygamy with homosexuality is just stupid. It's literally the definition of apples and oranges. It isn't a biological condition to only be attracted to/have relationships with multiple partners at the same time all of whom you're legally married to.

I'm not equating the ethics and biology of the two of them at all, I'm equating their status under the law. He stated that it is fine to not have polygamy because it is equal under the law in the sense that no one else is allowed to do it. If that's the case, the same argument can be made for homosexuals in that no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex under the law. Ta da, equal.

And I'd be very careful with how you define a "biological condition"...what exactly is the sex drive?

[Son of JayJamJah]

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. It should be up to the church or individuals who gets married to who.

Why do I care if someone Marry's a man, woman, 10 men and 12 woman or a herd of cattle. There is no law that says I can't call them a crazy fucking asshole.

[adidasss]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

And why is it equal if homosexuals are allowed to marry who they wish but a polygamist wouldn't be able to [which in this case would obviously be multiple people]? If we don't allow it, aren't we willingly discriminating against polygamy? There are no consent or medical reasons for it being illegal, just some sort of religious dogma. I have no idea how you can say that equality should apply to homosexuals and not polygamists.



I'm not equating the ethics and biology of the two of them at all, I'm equating their status under the law. He stated that it is fine to not have polygamy because it is equal under the law in the sense that no one else is allowed to do it. If that's the case, the same argument can be made for homosexuals in that no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex under the law. Ta da, equal.

And I'd be very careful with how you define a "biological condition"...what exactly is the sex drive?

I agree that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, polygamists at least deserve to have their case reexamined. But one of the reasons why it's not very likely that polygamist marriages will become legal in the near future is that it creates a world of social and legal problems (like for instance, if one of the parties to a polygamist marriage dies, there would be a problem regarding inheritance, if they become incapacitated, there are issues as to which of the other spouses would be able to make medical or other decisions for them etc.) and changes the institution of marriage for everyone, unlike granting same-sex couples the right to marry which doesn't.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by adidasss

I agree that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, polygamists at least deserve to have their case reexamined. But one of the reasons why it's not very likely that polygamist marriages will become legal in the near future is that it creates a world of social and legal problems (like for instance, if one of the parties to a polygamist marriage dies, there would be a problem regarding inheritance, if they become incapacitated, there are issues as to which of the other spouses would be able to make medical or other decisions for them etc.) and changes the institution of marriage for everyone, unlike granting same-sex couples the right to marry which doesn't.

Interesting argument, the equality one's just weren't cutting it. As I said [or if I didn't, now I'm saying it], I'm not for polygamy at all but was just playing devil's advocate. It brings in a whole slew a potential suitors for polygamy though if opened up. I do feel it's a matter of time before *** marriages are legalized.

As to JJJ, that's not really the point since the government has already decided to involve itself in marriages. Though in theory I agree with your point.