rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Jul 29, 2011 7:47:07 GMT -5
That can't be possible! We were promised that support for gay marriage would never lead to the legalization of polygamy and interspecies marriage. Anyone who made the perfectly logical slippery slope argument was accused of hate speech and thought crime.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 29, 2011 8:18:54 GMT -5
A slippery slope to a notoriously media hungry liberal law professor making an argument for polygamy? Terrifying.
Note that he didn't say a word about "interspecies marriage." That came from you...
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 7, 2012 14:03:23 GMT -5
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Feb 7, 2012 14:24:55 GMT -5
This is great!
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,755
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Feb 7, 2012 15:34:16 GMT -5
It is the 9th Circuit, after all.
They'd declare the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional if they could.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 7, 2012 16:16:34 GMT -5
It is the 9th Circuit, after all. They'd declare the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional if they could. Blaming the 9th Circuit (whose reputation is mainly a political construct) is convenient for now, but that excuse will disappear if/when this opinion is appealed and affirmed. You'll be interested to know that one member of the three-judge panel dissented. Amazingly, that fact is completely absent from the NYT article linked above. ON EDIT: Upon further review, there is a passing reference to a "2-1 decision."
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 7, 2012 19:38:00 GMT -5
It is the 9th Circuit, after all. They'd declare the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional if they could. Blaming the 9th Circuit (whose reputation is mainly a political construct) is convenient for now, but that excuse will disappear if/when this opinion is appealed and affirmed. You'll be interested to know that one member of the three-judge panel dissented. Amazingly, that fact is completely absent from the NYT article linked above. ON EDIT: Upon further review, there is a passing reference to a "2-1 decision." Passing reference? What more do you want them to say. I think most people know that 2-1 means two people voted to affirm, and one dissented.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 7, 2012 20:52:22 GMT -5
Passing reference? What more do you want them to say. I think most people know that 2-1 means two people voted to affirm, and one dissented. Typically, appellate court coverage includes discussion of the dissent's reasoning. "Judge _____ dissented, writing that ______" is what I'd like to see. It's an important part of the story, unless you're going for the rah-rah headline. (The headline, by the way, is "Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California," which isn't what happened today, but I suppose that sounds better than "District Court Ruling Affirmed.") My guess is that most NYT subscribers (myself included) support today's holding, and the coverage was slanted to match.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 8, 2012 15:07:18 GMT -5
So, if i get this correctly, the court affirmed a district court ruling that would allow two adults (age of consent unknown to me) who love each other and want to commit to each other to do so.
How can this be anything but good?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 8, 2012 22:15:44 GMT -5
So, if i get this correctly, the court affirmed a district court ruling that would allow two adults (age of consent unknown to me) who love each other and want to commit to each other to do so. How can this be anything but good? Not oversimplifying or anything.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 9, 2012 10:42:48 GMT -5
So, if i get this correctly, the court affirmed a district court ruling that would allow two adults (age of consent unknown to me) who love each other and want to commit to each other to do so. How can this be anything but good? What happens if I change one word in your post, from "two" to "three"?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Feb 9, 2012 11:01:29 GMT -5
So, if i get this correctly, the court affirmed a district court ruling that would allow two adults (age of consent unknown to me) who love each other and want to commit to each other to do so. How can this be anything but good? What happens if I change one word in your post, from "two" to "three"? Then you'd be talking about a different thing.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 9, 2012 11:04:46 GMT -5
What happens if I change one word in your post, from "two" to "three"? Then you'd be talking about a different thing. How so?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Feb 9, 2012 11:12:25 GMT -5
Then you'd be talking about a different thing. How so? Because polygamy and homosexuality are not the same thing. I mean, I understand the slippery slope argument. I also don't think it's a strong argument in any sense. You could always add an additional element that seems related, but adding that additional element changes what we're talking about.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 9, 2012 11:22:44 GMT -5
Because polygamy and homosexuality are not the same thing. I mean, I understand the slippery slope argument. I also don't think it's a strong argument in any sense. You could always add an additional element that seems related, but adding that additional element changes what we're talking about. If marriage is just a contract between two consenting adults, why can't three consenting adults enter into a marriage contract? Is it because marriage is traditionally between two people? ;D (The answer, of course, is that we should trust the government to know the best way for consenting adults to legally bind themselves)
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Feb 9, 2012 11:32:53 GMT -5
Because polygamy and homosexuality are not the same thing. I mean, I understand the slippery slope argument. I also don't think it's a strong argument in any sense. You could always add an additional element that seems related, but adding that additional element changes what we're talking about. If marriage is just a contract between two consenting adults, why can't three consenting adults enter into a marriage contract? Is it because marriage is traditionally between two people? ;D (The answer, of course, is that we should trust the government to know the best way for consenting adults to legally bind themselves) If a marriage contract is just a contract between a man and a woman, why not a man and a young girl? Or an old woman and a little boy? I am not interested in defending polygamy. Why not argue about what's wrong with gay marriage instead of thinking of something else and asking me to explain what's wrong with it?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 9, 2012 11:37:18 GMT -5
If marriage is just a contract between two consenting adults, why can't three consenting adults enter into a marriage contract? Is it because marriage is traditionally between two people? ;D (The answer, of course, is that we should trust the government to know the best way for consenting adults to legally bind themselves) If a marriage contract is just a contract between a man and a woman, why not a man and a young girl? Or an old woman and a little boy? I am not interested in defending polygamy. Why not argue about what's wrong with gay marriage instead of thinking of something else and asking me to explain what's wrong with it? Well, the phrase "consenting adult" rules out the kids. So do the words "man" and "woman" But really, I'm just being obtuse because I'm still in a bad mood from last night. I don't have a problem w/ marriage being between two consenting adults of either gender (so long as they have to earn it by going to a Pre-Cana session like I did ;D), nor do I have a problem with polygamy in theory (in practice, of course, it tends to rarely, if ever, involve three consenting adults, so its kinda moot)
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Feb 9, 2012 11:53:06 GMT -5
Well, the phrase "consenting adult" rules out the kids. So do the words "man" and "woman" But really, I'm just being obtuse because I'm still in a bad mood from last night. I don't have a problem w/ marriage being between two consenting adults of either gender (so long as they have to earn it by going to a Pre-Cana session like I did ;D), nor do I have a problem with polygamy in theory (in practice, of course, it tends to rarely, if ever, involve three consenting adults, so its kinda moot) Haha no I understand, it was not a pleasant morning. I think when you talk about 'consenting adults,' you're now using particular language to exclude other combinations. Which is pretty much the point I'm making. Marriage wasn't always between adults, let alone consenting adults. The traditional/historical argument doesn't like to acknowledge the full history and tradition of marriage. To me, legalizing gay marriage is just about removing the restriction of 'opposite genders.' It still keeps the other particularized language about adults/consenting/two. The idea that to justify gay marriage people have to explain why they don't agree with OTHER things is strange to me; my questions above were about doing the same thing to heterosexual marriage. Wasn't offended though, appreciate thoughtful discussion on any topic For me (besides the fact that I'm 26 and grew up without gay people being some kind of 'other'), I think that one day I'm going to have kids. If any of my kids are gay, what kind of world do I want them to grow up in?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 9, 2012 12:14:51 GMT -5
Well, the phrase "consenting adult" rules out the kids. So do the words "man" and "woman" But really, I'm just being obtuse because I'm still in a bad mood from last night. I don't have a problem w/ marriage being between two consenting adults of either gender (so long as they have to earn it by going to a Pre-Cana session like I did ;D), nor do I have a problem with polygamy in theory (in practice, of course, it tends to rarely, if ever, involve three consenting adults, so its kinda moot) Haha no I understand, it was not a pleasant morning. I think when you talk about 'consenting adults,' you're now using particular language to exclude other combinations. Which is pretty much the point I'm making. Marriage wasn't always between adults, let alone consenting adults. The traditional/historical argument doesn't like to acknowledge the full history and tradition of marriage. To me, legalizing gay marriage is just about removing the restriction of 'opposite genders.' It still keeps the other particularized language about adults/consenting/two. The idea that to justify gay marriage people have to explain why they don't agree with OTHER things is strange to me; my questions above were about doing the same thing to heterosexual marriage. Wasn't offended though, appreciate thoughtful discussion on any topic For me (besides the fact that I'm 26 and grew up without gay people being some kind of 'other'), I think that one day I'm going to have kids. If any of my kids are gay, what kind of world do I want them to grow up in? The last point is an important one, I think. I also just have a hard time justifying the government interfering with consenting adults that aren't harming anyone, whether its marriage, business or some other personal decisions.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 9, 2012 12:20:44 GMT -5
Serious question: if polygamy/polyandry is ever legalized, how do we resolve the taxation-related issues? "My eight husbands and I would like to file a joint return" is going to make heads spin at the IRS.
Follow-up question: if such issues cannot be neatly resolved, does that become a basis for the state to prohibit polygamy?
|
|