Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[NoAdmiration]

Some does not equal all and many does not mean most.

 

[IndyDave1776]

And are folks assuming that polygamy necessarily involves representatives of both conventional genders? Just to clarify...

Once you throw out the conventionally accepted definition of marriage, you open lots of doors with lots of combinations of participants, including, but probably not limited to:

1. Tradition 1 man and 1 woman marriage.
2. Homosexual 2 men or 2 women.
3. Traditional polygamy of 1 man plus 2 or more women (which I might point out has traditionally been more accepted during times and within cultures in which there were shortages of men, like after extended periods of chronic war or situations like the early Mormon men getting thinned out of non-natural causes resulting in a large imbalance).
4. Nontraditional polygamy of 3 or more men or 3 or more women.
5. Group marriages of multiples of both genders which may or may not be limited to heterosexual, well, relations.
6. Throw in transgenders and the possibilities probably exceed the tired state of my mind at the moment.

I would also point out that age is far from a settled issue, and I have not even considered 'marriage' with animals or inanimate objects like the woman (from Britain, if I remember correctly) who considers herself married to a tree.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Some does not equal all and many does not mean most.

True, but we just had a major social norm legally upended by 2% of the population. I would point out that this is a significantly smaller group than certifiable sociopaths who represent approximately 3% of the population. What are we going to do when they start screaming that we discriminate against them?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Once you throw out the conventionally accepted definition of marriage, you open lots of doors with lots of combinations of participants, including, but probably not limited to:

1. Tradition 1 man and 1 woman marriage.
2. Homosexual 2 men or 2 women.
3. Traditional polygamy of 1 man plus 2 or more women (which I might point out has traditionally been more accepted during times and within cultures in which there were shortages of men, like after extended periods of chronic war or situations like the early Mormon men getting thinned out of non-natural causes resulting in a large imbalance).
4. Nontraditional polygamy of 3 or more men or 3 or more women.
5. Group marriages of multiples of both genders which may or may not be limited to heterosexual, well, relations.
6. Throw in transgenders and the possibilities probably exceed the tired state of my mind at the moment.

I would also point out that age is far from a settled issue, and I have not even considered 'marriage' with animals or inanimate objects like the woman (from Britain, if I remember correctly) who considers herself married to a tree.

Don't forget multiple marriages. Why should I be limited to just one marriage construct?

 

[singlesix]

Don't forget multiple marriages. Why should I be limited to just one marriage construct?

Because a man can take only so much misery?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Don't forget multiple marriages. Why should I be limited to just one marriage construct?

The bottom line is that once a narrow definition which has stood for the duration of our history is kicked to the curb, all kinds of doors are opened.

 

[NoAdmiration]

This is a slippery slope argument. I'm not sure how we get from gay people to sociopaths. It's OK if you don't like gay marriage or even gay people (I'm not assuming anything about you here) but if you want to deny adults the right to do something, you need a better reason than religion, tradition, or personal taste. If you cannot demonstrate a significant and legitimate harm, then you have no foundation from which to to deny anyone anything they freely choose to do.

If you choose not to do these things then that is your right and I support you fully. Neither you nor I have the right to deny people their freedom of choice based on our subjective ascetic preferences.

 

[NoAdmiration]

Also there is no "certification" for sociopaths, it's a diagnosis and covers a very broad spectrum of behaviors. It's important to avoid mixing pop culture slang with technical terms. This causes confusion.

 

[MisterChester]

Some thoughts on legalizing polygamous marriages:

1. Is everybody equal in such a marriage? Does it vary depending on the time they've been married?
2. Can new people be added?
3. How is it structured? Is it 3 women married to a man, do they form a ring, or a mesh?
4. Related to the above, how does divorce work? Can it fail due to disagreement?
5. Is there a size limit? What if a whole town decides to get married, imagine the work untangling that will be.
6. What if one person is in the hospital and there are two others that can make a life or death decision, and disagree?
7. There are practical social issues. Eg, rich man gets himself 20 wives. Enough of that will skew the ratio in the community, resulting in some really angry people.
8. Who do the children belong to?
9. The court system will probably need an upgrade. We're talking about dramatically increasing complexity and opportunity for conflict.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is a slippery slope argument. I'm not sure how we get from gay people to sociopaths. It's OK if you don't like gay marriage or even gay people (I'm not assuming anything about you here) but if you want to deny adults the right to do something, you need a better reason than religion, tradition, or personal taste. If you cannot demonstrate a significant and legitimate harm, then you have no foundation from which to to deny anyone anything they freely choose to do.

If you choose not to do these things then that is your right and I support you fully. Neither you nor I have the right to deny people their freedom of choice based on our subjective ascetic preferences.

It would seem that we have some common ground here. Most of the arguments why homosexual marriage should be allowed while continuing to disallow assorted other potential situations are based on personal preferences rather than any legally definable or defensible distinction. Just as I can't leave the barn door open for the purpose of allowing one animal to enter and exit at its leisure while expecting the others to refrain from doing so, it is not possible to eliminate the existing standard with the expectation that only one group will benefit and all others will voluntarily remain silent.

I would point out that my objections are not to denying anyone freedom, but rather that they are not entitled to legislated acceptance, which seems to be a principal goal, and they are not entitled to special status because of their sexual proclivities. Denying them their own choices is one thing. Being expected to apply official imprimatur is something entirely different.

As previously addressed, your significant and legitimate harm is very much open to interpretation regardless of what the cheerleaders may say. I don't really care about two men banging each other or contractually pooling their worldly resources. I do care about legislating acceptance and the legal precedent which is going to make continued restriction of a number of other things very difficult, again, given that harm is a very subjective matter, particularly in the context at hand.

 

[Beowulf]

The bottom line is that once a narrow definition which has stood for the duration of our history is kicked to the curb, all kinds of doors are opened.

If you mean only in Europe and that only after the spread of Christianity, then yes. Plural marriage is very old (and in fact most likely predates the concept of so called traditional marriage). It was practiced around the world, in many cultures and religions. Only in the last 100 years or so have we seen it really start to fade out (China banned it after the communist revolution and has become much more uncommon in Muslim countries as the religious view of plural marriage has changed some). Granted, for the vast majority of human history, plural marriage was almost always one man and multiple women.

Frankly, given the court ruling, I'm not sure how they can deny plural marriage between consenting adults at this point (other than the government simply just dropping out of the marriage racket entirely, like Alabama is planning on doing).

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you mean only in Europe and that only after the spread of Christianity, then yes. Plural marriage is very old (and in fact most likely predates the concept of so called traditional marriage). It was practiced around the world, in many cultures and religions. Only in the last 100 years or so have we seen it really start to fade out (China banned it after the communist revolution and has become much more uncommon in Muslim countries as the religious view of plural marriage has changed some). Granted, for the vast majority of human history, plural marriage was almost always one man and multiple women.

Frankly, given the court ruling, I'm not sure how they can deny plural marriage between consenting adults at this point (other than the government simply just dropping out of the marriage racket entirely, like Alabama is planning on doing).

I don't see how removal of legal restrictions against most any form of sexual conduct can be enforced with the standard and reasoning applied here. Most arguments to the contrary rest on the same foundation as 'This is America. That can't happen here.' Of course, we all know how that works.

Any proclivity can be said to be a condition present from birth and not a choice. Age of consent is a completely arbitrary and artificial construct. The closest thing to a natural/innate standard I could think of would be reaching sexual maturity at age 12+/-, and when we throw in other species, the standard argument is that it isn't consensual. If a woman, well, positions herself and the dog does her, how can it be argued that the dog did not consent when he could just as easily have walked away?

The bottom line is that the definition of marriage accepted in our culture was definitely a product of religious doctrine which was never seriously questioned because it reflected the values of most all of the people. That is no longer the case, but I am concerned that most people have not considered the consequences of throwing out that standard with their eyes on only one alternative arrangement when there are in fact a good many of them.

 

[Beowulf]

I don't see how removal of legal restrictions against most any form of sexual conduct can be enforced with the standard and reasoning applied here. Most arguments to the contrary rest on the same foundation as 'This is America. That can't happen here.' Of course, we all know how that works.

Any proclivity can be said to be a condition present from birth and not a choice. Age of consent is a completely arbitrary and artificial construct. The closest thing to a natural/innate standard I could think of would be reaching sexual maturity at age 12+/-, and when we throw in other species, the standard argument is that it isn't consensual. If a woman, well, positions herself and the dog does her, how can it be argued that the dog did not consent when he could just as easily have walked away?

The bottom line is that the definition of marriage accepted in our culture was definitely a product of religious doctrine which was never seriously questioned because it reflected the values of most all of the people. That is no longer the case, but I am concerned that most people have not considered the consequences of throwing out that standard with their eyes on only one alternative arrangement when there are in fact a good many of them.

The real question is whether it is really a problem? As to the scenario with 12 year olds and dogs, the law already has that in hand. Since we've decided to set the age of consent to enter into contracts at 18 (plus a whole bunch of other stuff, except drinking and handgun ownership for some reason), that pretty much removes worries about people marrying children (well, unless their parents consent, in which case that's a whole other kettle of fish). As to animals, as they are not people and thus cannot consent, that's hardly a concern either (though I guess you could get into an absolutist view of property rights saying you should be able to do whatever you wanted with animals, as they are property... but, eww gross).

That brings us back to the idea of plural marriage being a problem. Certainly, it is a very different social arrangement to what we are used to, but I don't know if you can immediately assume it would be a damaging one. Again, it's something that has been practiced extensively throughout human history and the species managed to survive until now. It's not really my thing, but really, other than having full legal recognition, what's to stop people from just living that way today? If 2 men and 3 women wanted to get a house together, sign various mutual powers of attorney and other binding contracts, and just lived together, communally raising any children born, they can. There is nothing legally stopping them from doing so. The only thing they can't do is have what they are doing officially called a marriage. But all that does is make the legal paperwork much simpler.

 

[wagyu52]

Some thoughts on legalizing polygamous marriages:

1. Is everybody equal in such a marriage? Does it vary depending on the time they've been married?
2. Can new people be added?
3. How is it structured? Is it 3 women married to a man, do they form a ring, or a mesh?
4. Related to the above, how does divorce work? Can it fail due to disagreement?
5. Is there a size limit? What if a whole town decides to get married, imagine the work untangling that will be.
6. What if one person is in the hospital and there are two others that can make a life or death decision, and disagree?
7. There are practical social issues. Eg, rich man gets himself 20 wives. Enough of that will skew the ratio in the community, resulting in some really angry people.
8. Who do the children belong to?
9. The court system will probably need an upgrade. We're talking about dramatically increasing complexity and opportunity for conflict.

10. Multiple marriages, I have property, stocks, bonds, assets and want to pass it to my heirs but don't want them to pay Capital gains. So my wife and I marry our daughter/son-in-law, presto instant tax loophole.
This whole gay marriage thing could be better than I thought.

 

[Expat]

Seems like we are reaching the point where marriage and family have no real meaning.

 

[Woobie]

The real question is whether it is really a problem? As to the scenario with 12 year olds and dogs, the law already has that in hand. Since we've decided to set the age of consent to enter into contracts at 18 (plus a whole bunch of other stuff, except drinking and handgun ownership for some reason), that pretty much removes worries about people marrying children (well, unless their parents consent, in which case that's a whole other kettle of fish). As to animals, as they are not people and thus cannot consent, that's hardly a concern either (though I guess you could get into an absolutist view of property rights saying you should be able to do whatever you wanted with animals, as they are property... but, eww gross).

That brings us back to the idea of plural marriage being a problem. Certainly, it is a very different social arrangement to what we are used to, but I don't know if you can immediately assume it would be a damaging one. Again, it's something that has been practiced extensively throughout human history and the species managed to survive until now. It's not really my thing, but really, other than having full legal recognition, what's to stop people from just living that way today? If 2 men and 3 women wanted to get a house together, sign various mutual powers of attorney and other binding contracts, and just lived together, communally raising any children born, they can. There is nothing legally stopping them from doing so. The only thing they can't do is have what they are doing officially called a marriage. But all that does is make the legal paperwork much simpler.

I disagree about the age thing. "The law already has that in hand" seems to have been shown to be shaky ground to me. We have a long history throughout the world of marriage between 2 young people or 1 young person and 1 person we would, in modern America, consider to be of age. Now your argument that we don't consider them to be capable of making adult decisions through the breadth of our culture and law might be enough to prevent this, and I hope you're right. But then again, there is strong scientific evidence showing people up to the age of 23 or so lack the capacity to fully comprehend the serious nature of their choices (hence binge drinking in college, etc.). We don't seem to mind empowering those people with the rights to buy and sell real estate, drive vehicles, buy alcohol and firearms, get married, and all sorts of other adult choices with possible life-long or life-ending consequences. Furthermore, children are already bringing children into this world, which is perhaps the most permanent choice a couple can make. Would allowing that same couple to get married make that situation worse?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, and I hope the arguments to the contrary can overcome mine. But I could see, not now, but in 10-15 years, a shift in the cultural and legal status quo on this issue.

Now as for animal marriage, that will happen too. Yuck.

 

[Woobie]

Seems like we are reaching the point where marriage and family have no real meaning.

It depends on to whom you are referring.

If it is God, then it will always matter.

If if it is our culture, then I would agree whole-heartedly. In fact, marriage had not mattered to our culture for quite some time. Look at the divorce rate. Those vows are really just cute words meant to warm hearts in a ceremony. Weeks or years, later, the true temporary nature of the vows are revealed. Now look at the number of domestic partnerships. Marriage is seen to be a societal construct, while all the sexual, relational, emotional and most of the financial benefits of the marriage relationship are enjoyed in such partnerships without the hassle and expense of a wedding. Absent faith in the Author of marriage, I'm not sure I see the point either, frankly, if one is to be honest. It is still a good thing, and I would support it, I just don't know what one's philosophical basis is for it without faith.

 

[cobber]

Justice Kennedy Obergefell judge-made rights National Review Online

In Obergefell, Justice Kennedy made it clear to lower courts that, after he eliminated Glucksberg, the only remaining limit on new judge-made rights is a judge’s imagination. He noted that “when new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim for liberty must be addressed.” In other words, he believes that since the Founders “did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions,” they gave courts unlimited power to “protect . . . the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” The “we” in that sentence refers to judges.

Just wait until the courts discover a "right" to feel safe, and then use it to rein in the 2d A. But hey, it's all about liberty, right?

 

[PaulF]

Seems like we are reaching the point where marriage and family have no real meaning.

You are free to define marriage and family exactly how you choose, and to enter into that marriage and family legally...for the most part.

You are free to associate with others who define marriage and family in the same way. You are free to spend your time espousing your beliefs that your definition of marriage and family are the proper ones, that they produce the best results, that they are most pleasing to gods...whatever.

You are not free to use to power of the state to force others to adhere to your definition of marriage and family...any longer. While this represents a loss of privilege for some, it represents an increase in basic liberty for others...I'm good with that.

The right to define ones own relationship trumps the abillity of others to...it is as simple as that. Do you not agree?

 

[Woobie]

You are free to define marriage and family exactly how you choose, and to enter into that marriage and family legally...for the most part.

You are free to associate with others who define marriage and family in the same way. You are free to spend your time espousing your beliefs that your definition of marriage and family are the proper ones, that they produce the best results, that they are most pleasing to gods...whatever.

You are not free to use to power of the state to force others to adhere to your definition of marriage and family...any longer. While this represents a loss of privilege for some, it represents an increase in basic liberty for others...I'm good with that.

The right to define ones own relationship trumps the abillity of others to...it is as simple as that. Do you not agree?

As one who obviously believes in traditional marriage, I do agree. However, I am a bit pessimistic on what the government will do to churches and ministers as a result of further developments leading to a "compelling interest" in securing the right to be married by the church or minister of your choice.