|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 7, 2010 18:03:02 GMT -5
The marriage of close relations has been shown scientifically to be bad for society because of the genetic ramifications of inbreeding. There are no proven problems with gay marriage. And even in spite of these problems with inbreeding, some (maybe many) states do allow some level of relations to marry. I know that NY allows first cousins to marry. So with close relations, there's a good reason not to allow it, but some states still do! Gay marriage: none of the same problems, but most states do not allow it. Legislating religious morals at its finest.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 9, 2010 10:27:05 GMT -5
Marriage is a state issue, not a federal statute or a Constitutional right which is where the ruling will face crosswinds in the appellate process. And when does the first man with two wives comes before a California judge seeking a marriage certificate? However odious, I don't see where they turn that down, either. But none of these rulings are really about marriage, nor is the 14th amendment. It's about equal protection. The number of people who can enter into a legal arrangement is not fundamentally discriminatory because it's an attribute of the arrangement, not of the people in the arrangement. Except that the prohibition on a man marrying two women is not about the "number of people" or an "attribute of the arrangement." Look, I look at Bill Paxon and having to deal with three wives instead of just one is ten times worse than being stuck in a twister with Helen Hunt. But that's not why its prohibited. It's because of the morality of the arrangement, not the numbers. All of the same arguments about why gay marriage should be allowed can be made about polygamy, or marrying a second cousin, and so on.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,205
|
Post by hoya9797 on Aug 9, 2010 10:29:48 GMT -5
Marriage is a state issue, not a federal statute or a Constitutional right which is where the ruling will face crosswinds in the appellate process. And when does the first man with two wives comes before a California judge seeking a marriage certificate? However odious, I don't see where they turn that down, either. Why would it be so terrible if three consenting adults wanted to get married?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 9, 2010 11:00:29 GMT -5
Marriage is a state issue, not a federal statute or a Constitutional right which is where the ruling will face crosswinds in the appellate process. And when does the first man with two wives comes before a California judge seeking a marriage certificate? However odious, I don't see where they turn that down, either. Why would it be so terrible if three consenting adults wanted to get married? As long as they're consenting adults, from a moral standpoint, I could care less. The entire population of Prince Georges County can be "married" for all I care. I think the issue then becomes how benefits are apportioned. Do all of the consenting adults get the tax breaks, etc.? That opens up the next can of worms: why does the government give anything to married people that it doesn't give to anyone else? I certainly agree with those who say that married people should be treated no differently in the eyes of the government or the law than are single people.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 9, 2010 11:02:29 GMT -5
But none of these rulings are really about marriage, nor is the 14th amendment. It's about equal protection. The number of people who can enter into a legal arrangement is not fundamentally discriminatory because it's an attribute of the arrangement, not of the people in the arrangement. Except that the prohibition on a man marrying two women is not about the "number of people" or an "attribute of the arrangement." Look, I look at Bill Paxon and having to deal with three wives instead of just one is ten times worse than being stuck in a twister with Helen Hunt. But that's not why its prohibited. It's because of the morality of the arrangement, not the numbers. All of the same arguments about why gay marriage should be allowed can be made about polygamy, or marrying a second cousin, and so on. maybe that's why it was originally prohibited, but the numbers issue and the attribute of the arrangement is why it should remain illegal in terms of civil unions. Especially due to the tax and other benefits that come from the legal arrangement.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 9, 2010 11:09:07 GMT -5
Why would it be so terrible if three consenting adults wanted to get married? As long as they're consenting adults, from a moral standpoint, I could care less. The entire population of Prince Georges County can be "married" for all I care. I think the issue then becomes how benefits are apportioned. Do all of the consenting adults get the tax breaks, etc.? That opens up the next can of worms: why does the government give anything to married people that it doesn't give to anyone else? I certainly agree with those who say that married people should be treated no differently in the eyes of the government or the law than are single people. The government has a vested interest in giving married people benefits because, especially with child-rearing, there's a consensus that two-parent households do better (HHS has a few things that emphasize getting married). There's also some social glue stuff, too. However, since more a higher percentage of married couples leads to a healthier society, the government has it in its interest to incentivize marriage.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 9, 2010 11:09:39 GMT -5
More troublesome is why do married folks get shafted under the tax code?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 9, 2010 13:58:41 GMT -5
Why would it be so terrible if three consenting adults wanted to get married? As long as they're consenting adults, from a moral standpoint, I could care less. The entire population of Prince Georges County can be "married" for all I care. I think the issue then becomes how benefits are apportioned. Do all of the consenting adults get the tax breaks, etc.? That opens up the next can of worms: why does the government give anything to married people that it doesn't give to anyone else? I certainly agree with those who say that married people should be treated no differently in the eyes of the government or the law than are single people. Yeah but none of this matters. All these are matters of taxation. It's well within the law to give first-time homebuyers, small businesses, married people, single people, or hell, poor people tax incentives, breaks, and credits. But what you can't do is tell someone, I'm treating you differently because you're Asian, male, or Episcopalian. That's what this is about. Why polygamy wasn't historically allowed or whether or not people like tax deductions for children or anything else is irrelevant for the consitutional argument here. I personally don't care if someone wants to marry their refrigerator but they can't claim it as a dependent and then say we're discriminating against non-human spouses. But if I don't allow someone to claim a human spouse because he's male and the first person is too, then we have a problem.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 9, 2010 14:02:36 GMT -5
As long as they're consenting adults, from a moral standpoint, I could care less. The entire population of Prince Georges County can be "married" for all I care. I think the issue then becomes how benefits are apportioned. Do all of the consenting adults get the tax breaks, etc.? That opens up the next can of worms: why does the government give anything to married people that it doesn't give to anyone else? I certainly agree with those who say that married people should be treated no differently in the eyes of the government or the law than are single people. Yeah but none of this matters. All these are matters of taxation. It's well within the law to give first-time homebuyers, small businesses, married people, single people, or hell, poor people tax incentives, breaks, and credits. But what you can't do is tell someone, I'm treating you differently because you're Asian, male, or Episcopalian. That's what this is about. Why polygamy wasn't historically allowed or whether or not people like tax deductions for children or anything else is irrelevant for the consitutional argument here. I personally don't care if someone wants to marry their refrigerator but they can't claim it as a dependent and then say we're discriminating against non-human spouses. But if I don't allow someone to claim a human spouse because he's male and the first person is too, then we have a problem. Why is it ok to say you can claim one human spouse (male or female), but not ok to say you cannot claim two human spouses? The same constitutional arguments apply.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 9, 2010 14:11:13 GMT -5
people have explained it to you but you keep ignoring it.
Read Giga's post from the last page: "Sure they can and the reason is, that is not discriminatory. This isn't about marriage. I know people start with the marriage part and work to "well they I can just marry my dog!"
But none of these rulings are really about marriage, nor is the 14th amendment. It's about equal protection. The number of people who can enter into a legal arrangement is not fundamentally discriminatory because it's an attribute of the arrangement, not of the people in the arrangement.
But saying you can't marry someone because of gender, race, or religion is in fact discriminatory. That's the thing about this debate. We're talking about marriage but we could say a man and a woman cannot enter into a business partnership in the state of Nebraska and it would essentially be the same argument."
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,451
|
Post by TC on Aug 9, 2010 14:31:34 GMT -5
Look, I look at Bill Paxon and having to deal with three wives instead of just one is ten times worse than being stuck in a twister with Helen Hunt. How does it rank with being captured by an alien beneath your feet and having your torso explode with an alien bursting out of it?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,312
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 9, 2010 14:44:03 GMT -5
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 9, 2010 15:17:45 GMT -5
In short, the Court is saying and has said that no one can marry multiple people, not just a certain segment of the population.
What the current law says is that certain certain people can not have even one spouse, while other people can.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 9, 2010 15:31:05 GMT -5
people have explained it to you but you keep ignoring it. Read Giga's post from the last page: "Sure they can and the reason is, that is not discriminatory. This isn't about marriage. I know people start with the marriage part and work to "well they I can just marry my dog!" But none of these rulings are really about marriage, nor is the 14th amendment. It's about equal protection. The number of people who can enter into a legal arrangement is not fundamentally discriminatory because it's an attribute of the arrangement, not of the people in the arrangement. But saying you can't marry someone because of gender, race, or religion is in fact discriminatory. That's the thing about this debate. We're talking about marriage but we could say a man and a woman cannot enter into a business partnership in the state of Nebraska and it would essentially be the same argument." But the people want a polygamous marriage do so for religious reasons - seems like a good equal protection argument to me. No one is saying a homosexual man cannot marry - just that he can't marry another man. He could marry a woman. Similarly, I'm straight and I can marry a woman, but not a man. It has nothing to do with the class of people, but how you define what marriage is.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 9, 2010 15:32:00 GMT -5
In short, the Court is saying and has said that no one can marry multiple people, not just a certain segment of the population. What the current law says is that certain certain people can not have even one spouse, while other people can. The law does not say that. A gay man is free to get married to a woman.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 9, 2010 15:41:24 GMT -5
people have explained it to you but you keep ignoring it. Read Giga's post from the last page: "Sure they can and the reason is, that is not discriminatory. This isn't about marriage. I know people start with the marriage part and work to "well they I can just marry my dog!" But none of these rulings are really about marriage, nor is the 14th amendment. It's about equal protection. The number of people who can enter into a legal arrangement is not fundamentally discriminatory because it's an attribute of the arrangement, not of the people in the arrangement. But saying you can't marry someone because of gender, race, or religion is in fact discriminatory. That's the thing about this debate. We're talking about marriage but we could say a man and a woman cannot enter into a business partnership in the state of Nebraska and it would essentially be the same argument." But the people want a polygamous marriage do so for religious reasons - seems like a good equal protection argument to me. No one is saying a homosexual man cannot marry - just that he can't marry another man. He could marry a woman. Similarly, I'm straight and I can marry a woman, but not a man. It has nothing to do with the class of people, but how you define what marriage is. Right, you can't marry someone because of his or her sex. If you were a black business owner and I told you you could not serve white people, I could use your argument to say "nobody is saying you can't act as business, just that you can't act as one towards white people. You can serve blacks." That's not allowed. And no, equal protection does not protect "anything you like." My religion likes to do blow off hookers, but I can't argue the constitution should protect that. Regardless of whether or not I think laws against these victimless crimes are stupid or not (just like polygamy), there's nothing discriminatory about the law because nobody is actually being discriminated against based on sex, race, etc. No religions can do blow of hookers. Mine is not being disadvantaged in any way.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 9, 2010 15:49:17 GMT -5
kchoya - To me, those arguments don't sound any different than the old arguments saying, "A black person is allowed to marry - just that they can't marry a white person. They are still free to get married to a black woman."
As for the whole polygamy thing, I take it back to the previous point the separation of church and state on marriage. For legal purposes, polygamy shouldn't be allowed, otherwise you could get things like all of PG County marrying each other for the tax breaks and other incentives. That's why you need the cap on 2 people for legal civil unions.
However, if the state gets out of the marriage game, then I don't see why a church shouldn't be allowed to wed more than 2 people, provided it's between consenting adults (most of the polygamy cases that make the news involve non-consenting people and/or children). The law wouldn't recognize the marriage, but the law also wouldn't be able to forbid churches from recognizing it.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 9, 2010 15:51:12 GMT -5
people have explained it to you but you keep ignoring it. Read Giga's post from the last page: "Sure they can and the reason is, that is not discriminatory. This isn't about marriage. I know people start with the marriage part and work to "well they I can just marry my dog!" But none of these rulings are really about marriage, nor is the 14th amendment. It's about equal protection. The number of people who can enter into a legal arrangement is not fundamentally discriminatory because it's an attribute of the arrangement, not of the people in the arrangement. But saying you can't marry someone because of gender, race, or religion is in fact discriminatory. That's the thing about this debate. We're talking about marriage but we could say a man and a woman cannot enter into a business partnership in the state of Nebraska and it would essentially be the same argument." But the people want a polygamous marriage do so for religious reasons - seems like a good equal protection argument to me. then they can get a religious marriage? Seriously the government needs to get out of the marriage business and get into the civil union business. All government "marriages" are not marriages anyway. Government should not define what marriage is because marriage is a religious institution. If two people love each other and want to commit to each other they should be allowed to get a civil union. It just makes no sense to me to argue that two people of the same sex can't love each other and want to spend their lives together and get the same recognition from the government of their union that two people of the opposite sex get.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 9, 2010 16:40:54 GMT -5
But the people want a polygamous marriage do so for religious reasons - seems like a good equal protection argument to me. then they can get a religious marriage? Seriously the government needs to get out of the marriage business and get into the civil union business. All government "marriages" are not marriages anyway. Government should not define what marriage is because marriage is a religious institution. If two people love each other and want to commit to each other they should be allowed to get a civil union. It just makes no sense to me to argue that two people of the same sex can't love each other and want to spend their lives together and get the same recognition from the government of their union that two people of the opposite sex get. That would be the easiest solution. In fact, why have any civil unions either. No government recognition of marriages or civil unions, and no government benefits or taxes based on marital status.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 9, 2010 16:43:50 GMT -5
kchoya - To me, those arguments don't sound any different than the old arguments saying, "A black person is allowed to marry - just that they can't marry a white person. They are still free to get married to a black woman." Except that the issue is what is "marriage?" That wasn't the issue with miscegenation or other prohibitions based on racial lines.
|
|