Gay and Polygamous Marriages/Unions

[Jaymes]

Polygamous marriages would hurt our society - like all rights, civil rights are regulated.

I've asked you once already to back this up. Have you got anything other than your own word to support it?

 

[painted wolf]

let people decide for themselves what will make them happy.
I have no place telling them "do this" or "don't do that" in regards to love.

wa:do

 

[Flappycat]

Ah, the marriage issue. P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S. Pure and simple.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Um, yes that is exactly what a marriage is. Religion is not a part of my life, so I define marriage the same way the government does.

Uh O.K., you still have yet to give a definition of what marriage is or what it entails. You have given a couple of required prerequisites and reasons or benefits for getting married, but have yet to give what a marriage is. I'm sure the government defines marriage with more than that.

Exactly. What goes on in the private lives of two consenting adults isn't anyone's busniess - not the governments, not the church's, and not yours or mine. That's why nobody asks you what kind of sex you like to have when you apply for a marriage license.

Nobody, as far as I know is proposing that the government or us get that involved in each others personal lives and yet I hope that you are not so naive as to think that by giving the information you gave the county clerk keeps you free from any assumptions based on the information you gave and the reasons you gave it for. For someone who is insistant on the government not infringing on your personal life, you sure did not have a problem giving them personal information for some benefits.

This is a completely different monster. Personally I don't think the government SHOULD be regulating private business, but that has nothing to do with marriage.

Nothing to do with marriage?! I'd be willing to put my weeks pay on the line backing a statement that if it weren't for the benefits of a legally recognized marriage, this conversation probably wouldn't be happening right now. The funny thing is, the benefits could be taken care of in a different way. Take for instance, quit allowing insurance companies to put the regulations they do on what is defined as a family, have people register who they would allow to visit them if they ended up in a hospital and take the emmediate family restrictions away, etc.

Legally? Absolutely nothing. Morally, maybe some people who think marriage is a sacred religious bond would think otherwise, but as far as who can and who can't recieve a license from the state, then that morality has nothing to do with it. If you think it's immoral then you won't do it. The state doesn't care how long you've dated, if or how you love each other, or whether you're "just friends". Two consenting adult citizens of the country and state. That's all it takes. If personal life or morality isn't an issue for the state in giving out this paperwork, why shouldn't it be extended to any pair of consenting adults?

Wow, this must really vary from state to state. When my wife and I applied for our marriage liscence ten years ago, we were required to take a certain number of hours of marriage counseling before we could get the liscense which proves that there are presuppositions made by the government when one applies for them.

No. Not all legal contracts between two people are marriages. On a purely semantic level you could argue that. But, a marriage contract is a very specific contract that requires specific paperwork, information, and specific people to co-sign with you and your partner. A contract between two people to work together on a job is a business contract, and has very different requirements for paperwork, and sometimes requires a laywer depending on how complicated the contract is.

O.K., now we have not only come up with what the prerequisites and benefits of a legally recognized marriage are, but we now have something to distinguish it from. You still have yet to define what a marriage is from a legall standpoint but at least we are getting somewhere

Like what? I have time, trust me. I'm telling you what the rules are for two heterosexual people to obtain a marriage that is legal. Those rules are two consenting adults with a drivers license, and a justice of the peace. Questioning that system is questioining the rules that are already in place in government's system for marriage, which is still legally only between a man and a woman. Should we add questions about a person's private life to the paperwork to ensure their relationship is "valid"?

I'm not questioning the government's sytem of what the prerequisites are for getting a marriage liscence. I'm questioning you on what you believe the government defines a marriage actually is and why you are so insistent that you don't need anybody to validate you relationships but yet felt the need to get it legally validated by the government. I think I pretty much know the answer to that question though. It probably goes something like "to get the benefits"

Gramatically I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here, but here's my answer. People get married for many reasons. People get married in many different ways. The host of legal and financial benefits granted to a married couple from the government are the only reason to apply for a license. If these things didn't matter at all to you, and all you and your partner cared about was a marriage recognised by God and not the government, I'm sure you'd be able to find a priest or a rabbi or anyone else willing to marry you before God according to the rules of your religion without signing the legal paperwork.
I don't need you, the government, or God to tell me whether or not my relationship is valid. There are no standards for validity in that sense other then consent, and being of legal age.

O.K. thanks for confirming some things for me.

You know, it's also a law in NY that whoever is officiating your marriage ask you if you "come into this marriage of your own free will".

As tempting as this is, for the sake of not taking this thread in a completely off key direction, I better not address this one.

Sincerely,
SolideoGloria

 

[MaddLlama]

Uh O.K., you still have yet to give a definition of what marriage is or what it entails. You have given a couple of required prerequisites and reasons or benefits for getting married, but have yet to give what a marriage is. I'm sure the government defines marriage with more than that.

I believe I said before that a marriage is a legal contract between two people to form a permanent relationship. It is a union formally reognised by the state. It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that.

Nobody, as far as I know is proposing that the government or us get that involved in each others personal lives and yet I hope that you are not so naive as to think that by giving the information you gave the county clerk keeps you free from any assumptions based on the information you gave and the reasons you gave it for.

The person filing the paperwork can make all the assumptions they want.

For someone who is insistant on the government not infringing on your personal life, you sure did not have a problem giving them personal information for some benefits.

There's a big difference between telling some paper-pusher in a government office what my mother's maiden name is, and telling her when the last time I had sex was, or what my relationship is based on, or what it entails.

Nothing to do with marriage?! I'd be willing to put my weeks pay on the line backing a statement that if it weren't for the benefits of a legally recognized marriage, this conversation probably wouldn't be happening right now.

How do the benefits of a legal marriage affect the existance of business contracts? They are similar in that sometimes you gain benefits such as insurance from business contracts, but they aren't the same thing.
And, yeah, if there were no such thing as marriage, then we wouldn't be talking about it.

Wow, this must really vary from state to state. When my wife and I applied for our marriage liscence ten years ago, we were required to take a certain number of hours of marriage counseling before we could get the liscense which proves that there are presuppositions made by the government when one applies for them.

10 years ago maybe. As of January 2005 they don't require it.
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/iowa/index.shtml

Looking through I don't see any states that require counselling of any sort, or any test to guage the validity of the relationship before they'll give you the license.

O.K., now we have not only come up with what the prerequisites and benefits of a legally recognized marriage are, but we now have something to distinguish it from. You still have yet to define what a marriage is from a legall standpoint but at least we are getting somewhere

Legally speaking, there is no need to define marriage with sentimentality.

I'm not questioning the government's sytem of what the prerequisites are for getting a marriage liscence. I'm questioning you on what you believe the government defines a marriage actually is and why you are so insistent that you don't need anybody to validate you relationships but yet felt the need to get it legally validated by the government. I think I pretty much know the answer to that question though. It probably goes something like "to get the benefits"

You're misunderstanding me. You are using valid to mean judging whether or not my husband and I have a relationship that deserves marital status. I don't know how you want to define that - whether or not we love each other in some way, whether or relationship is functional, all very subjective things. Legal validity is different - your marriage is legally valid if you have the appropriate paperwork to prove so. And, nobody in the clerk's office knows anything else about my relationship. It doesn't matter how long we've been dating, how much we love each other or why we want to get married. They don't require the answers to those sorts of questions.

If it weren't for the benefits afforded by getting the license I wouldn't have done it. I don't need to have a wedding or even have a paper to prove that I love my husband. We've already been living together for several years, like normal married couples. But, having the paper entitles me to certain things I wouldn't otherwise be able to have, like medical insurance. I know the lack of sentimentality makes it sound awful, but really I don't see any other reason for apply for a license that affords you benefits to get something other than the benefits. If there is one I'd like to hear it.

 

[Flappycat]

Uh O.K., you still have yet to give a definition of what marriage is or what it entails.

Family. Basically, all it means is two people becoming family to one another and their respective families, if there is any of consequence, becoming family to one another as well by extension. It is a simple thing. Then again, I'm a bit of a country boy and can't really think of a marriage in terribly different terms.

I'm sure the government defines marriage with more than that.

The government doesn't marry people, and the government doesn't say whom is family to whom. They sign a piece of paper that says they understand that a couple will be interacting with each other in a particular way and that the law will shift slightly in accomodation, but that is more a consequence than anything else. You don't hear happy couples excitedly talking about how they're going to get their marriage licenses from their beloved government (I don't think many of them are likely to be in a mood for politicians or beuraucrats). Give em a trip down the aisle, throw them some rice, and mumble boredly for a while in the guise of being "solemn." That's all they really want to see of the whole thing. Let their parents handle the expense and process, hehehe.

Nothing to do with marriage?! I'd be willing to put my weeks pay on the line backing a statement that if it weren't for the benefits of a legally recognized marriage, this conversation probably wouldn't be happening right now.

Still would. We can get most of the benefits through a dimestore lawyer. I think most of us just don't like feeling snubbed.

When my wife and I applied for our marriage liscence ten years ago

With your attitude, you're probably looking at divorce within the next three to six years. The whole issue is just a way for very nasty people to snub a minority group whom they find disagreeable. The reality of the matter, though, is that the relationship you have with your partner is mud in comparison to one that has prospered under the scorn of society.

 

[Aqualung]

Policemen of course count because they are actively restraining liberty.

Only to the point where their excersise of liberty infringes upon my own liberties. Somebody else marrying two women in no way infringes upon anybody's liberties.

We determine together what the government stands for, and it obviously does not stand for what would hurt the majority of the people. Arguing against the legal ramifications of polygamy is a no-brainer.

How could polygamy hurt the majority of the people?! Even if the people in the marriage were NOT consenting, it would only hurt that small minority of people who married polygamously.

 

[fantome profane]

I voted for support of both gay marriage and polygamous marriages, but I do believe there is a difference. In the first case it seems very simple. We cannot allow any government is a free society do grant rights and benefits to one couple and deny them to another couple based on race, religion or gender.

In the second case however it seems to be that a relationship between two people is inherently different from a relationship between three or more. Polygamy does present certain legal difficulties dealing with inheritance rights, division of property in case of divorce, who gets to make medical decisions of one partner is unconscious in the hospital and other things like this.

I realize that these things could be spelled out in a legal document, but in a marriage between two people certain legal assumptions are made, and that often makes things much simpler and quicker.

But just because polygamy would be more complicated is not sufficient reason to prevent people from having this kind of relationship if they wish.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

The government doesn't marry people, and the government doesn't say whom is family to whom.

I or anybody else in this thread never stated that they did, but that is a neeto attempt at diverting the subject here. All I was trying to do was to get MaddLlama to validate why they were so insistant that they needed nobdoy to "validate" their relationship and yet felt the need to get their relationship validated at the local courthouse and what they believed was a legal definition of marriage, which they eventually gave and I appreciate.

Still would. We can get most of the benefits through a dimestore lawyer. I think most of us just don't like feeling snubbed

I sure would. I would love to see this so I can laugh even harder at the fact that all this debating has trully been in vain because of the miracle of dimestore lawyers. And here I was waiting for an intelligent response about commonlaw marriages and the legalities behind them.

With your attitude, you're probably looking at divorce within the next three to six years. The whole issue is just a way for very nasty people to snub a minority group whom they find disagreeable. The reality of the matter, though, is that the relationship you have with your partner is mud in comparison to one that has prospered under the scorn of society.

And here we go with the personal attacks. Here's a little challenge for you. Go ahead and look up the statistics for the survival of marriages when one member becomes incarcerated. You see, we got married in july of 96 and have not been divorced dispite my incarceration from dec. 99 to Aug. 03. I'm sure you can justify that absolutely baseless accusation of yours. Way to represent.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[MaddLlama]

I or anybody else in this thread never stated that they did, but that is a neeto attempt at diverting the subject here. All I was trying to do was to get MaddLlama to validate why they were so insistant that they needed nobdoy to "validate" their relationship and yet felt the need to get their relationship validated at the local courthouse and what they believed was a legal definition of marriage, which they eventually gave and I appreciate.

If there's a question about my gender, I'm a woman. =) Shocking I know.

 

[Flappycat]

I or anybody else in this thread never stated that they did, but that is a neeto attempt at diverting the subject here.

No. I just have something to say on the subject you may not have heard before.

I would love to see this so I can laugh even harder at the fact that all this debating has trully been in vain because of the miracle of dimestore lawyers.

Happens all the time, though. People living together, particularly raising kids, are bound to check their legal situation at some point to protect the interests of their families. They end up in about the same set of legal circumstances as a married couple. Why did you think the GLBT community does so much through the courts?

And here I was waiting for an intelligent response about commonlaw marriages and the legalities behind them.

These things only exist in a few states, their legal status even then is iffy, and about half of them have gender-specific language. The subject doesn't hold much interest for me.

And here we go with the personal attacks.

You know better, and you STILL get defensive. That's what I call satisfaction.

Here's a little challenge for you. Go ahead and look up the statistics for the survival of marriages when one member becomes incarcerated. You see, we got married in july of 96 and have not been divorced dispite my incarceration from dec. 99 to Aug. 03. I'm sure you can justify that absolutely baseless accusation of yours.

So you're a married criminal. Big whoop. Hmmmmmmmmmm?

Mama didn't raise anyone's fool. I've seen this whole thing. Perhaps you'd have gotten more in the way of enlightening discussion from me if you'd shown more interest in dialogue than in keeping score. That's what I see you doing through your whole participation in this thread. Please, dude, just stop. I'm interested in what you've actually got to SAY. I want to hear something that comes from your heart. That's why I keep coming back. I don't come here to give you a source of cheap entertainment.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

No. I just have something to say on the subject you may not have heard before.

Silly me, and here I was under the impression that quoting a statement from somebody and then addressing it meant that you were addressing what they stated.

Happens all the time, though. People living together, particularly raising kids, are bound to check their legal situation at some point to protect the interests of their families. They end up in about the same set of legal circumstances as a married couple. Why did you think the GLBT community does so much through the courts?

Neeto, that still leaves the question of why are there so many discussions over it if it is being taken care of? As I have stated before in more than this thread, I actually have no problem with the idea of anybody getting the benefits that are on the line here. I would even state that the system as a whole needs to be overhauled, especially when it comes to healthcare. What I DO have a problem with is why is it that I can not hold the Christian views I do when it comes to Biblical morality issues without assumptions and attacks upon my personal life as if I am trying to turn society into a theocracy or hate certain people. If people want to get married and have (to quote the Flinstones) a gay ole time, then all the power to them. It has absolutely no bearing on my personal life at all. If you want to have a philosophical/theological discussion about the issue and can manage to keep it from getting personal, then by all means, lets do so.

You know better, and you STILL get defensive. That's what I call satisfaction.

I'll bet you're satisfied. If I made a personal attack about your relationships to the tone of

With your attitude, you're probably looking at divorce within the next three to six years.

and got a defensive response from you I'd probably get a sense of satisfaction too. Glad I could oblige you. BTW, since I should know better, I was wondering if you could educate me as to what was trully meant by that statement since you are affirming that it was not a personal attack.

So you're a married criminal. Big whoop. Hmmmmmmmmmm?

So you're..........nevermind

Mama didn't raise anyone's fool. I've seen this whole thing. Perhaps you'd have gotten more in the way of enlightening discussion from me if you'd shown more interest in dialogue than in keeping score. That's what I see you doing through your whole participation in this thread. Please, dude, just stop. I'm interested in what you've actually got to SAY. I want to hear something that comes from your heart. That's why I keep coming back. I don't come here to give you a source of cheap entertainment.

And how could I not engage in an enlightening discussion with your deep heartfelt OP to this thread that went:

Ah, the marriage issue. P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S. Pure and simple.

Boy, I must be pretty dense:areyoucra

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[MaddLlama]

What I DO have a problem with is why is it that I can not hold the Christian views I do when it comes to Biblical morality issues without assumptions and attacks upon my personal life as if I am trying to turn society into a theocracy or hate certain people.

For the record, I wouldn't tell any Christian that they're not allowed to think gay homosexuality is a sin, or that gay people are doing something wrong. My issue is that they're not asking for marriage from a religious standpoint, they're asking for marriage from a legal standpoint, and those are two different types of marriages. I don't think the outcry would be huge if they decided gays can get marriage licenses, but can't force a minister to marry them if they choose to have a ceremony. Personally I think it's a fair trade-off.
My point all along has been that the type of marriage being debated over in politics has nothing to do with the religious aspect of marriage, so therefore your personal religious morals are not more important than civil rights. Christianity and the Bible don't run the government, therefore Christian code of moral conduct is not more important than the Constitution. Vote with your beliefs, that's fine. The point is that this should never have even been an issue. First of all, I think the government has more important things to worry about, and second, someone by now should have realized that this is a civil rights and discrimination issue and not a religious one.

That has been what I've been saying all along.

 

[Flappycat]

Neeto, that still leaves the question of why are there so many discussions over it if it is being taken care of?

Like I said, it's the snub. For practical purposes, I'd be more interested in winning the adoption fight than anything else, but, if everyone knew we function quite normally as parents, there wouldn't be any opposition to us receiving the silly marriage licenses.

What I DO have a problem with is why is it that I can not hold the Christian views I do when it comes to Biblical morality issues without assumptions and attacks upon my personal life as if I am trying to turn society into a theocracy or hate certain people.

Well, your "Biblical" views are offensive, at least as you express them.

If people want to get married and have (to quote the Flinstones) a gay ole time, then all the power to them. It has absolutely no bearing on my personal life at all.

Keep digging yourself deeper, amigo.

I'll bet you're satisfied. If I made a personal attack about your relationships to the tone of and got a defensive response from you I'd probably get a sense of satisfaction too.

Well, the trick to it is that you confirmed my suspicion that you're more interested in keeping tally than in either enlightening or being enlightened.

 

[MaddLlama]

I wanted to throw this in here because I thought it was interesting:

The Right to Marriage:
Heterosexuals seem to take it for granted that they have a right to marry whom they want; there is no such right in the Constitution, however. The Constitution says nothing at all about marriage and the regulation of marriage is left to the states. In theory, a state could ban all marriages, or all interfaith marriages, without violating anything explicitly stated in the Constitution. Equal protection of the laws must be maintained; otherwise, marriage can be restricted in lots of ways.

The Right to Procreate:
People may also assume that as with marriage, they have a right to have children. Also as with marriage, there is nothing in the Constitution about procreation. If a state banned procreation, required licenses for procreation, or selectively banned procreation for people with mental disabilities, physical disabilities, or other problems, nothing in the Constitution would automatically be violated. You have no explicit Constitutional right to procreate.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstateconstitution/p/Constitution.htm?nl=1

Got this article in the mail this morning. Something to think about.

Also while I'm on that site, I'd like to offer this for your persual, since this is both a first amendment issue, and a "seperation of church and state" issue:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_con_index.htm

 

[Melody]

The government is not there to protect us from ourselves. It's there to protect us from other people stealing our rights.

If this was true, then there would be no laws making suicide illegal.

I'm going to have to go with James on this one and just say "ditto".

 

[MaddLlama]

Where exactly is suicide against the law? And, how is it enforced?

 

[Flappycat]

Where exactly is suicide against the law? And, how is it enforced?

Death penalty, of course.

 

[MaddLlama]

Death penalty, of course.

And how exactly is that enforceable?

I heard that some states have laws against attempted suicide, but I've never heard of anyone arrested and sent to prison for trying to kill themselves.

The government does not exist to protect us from ourselves. If it did, then we wouldn't be allowed to smoke or drink, or do anything dangerous. That's why we have these things called liberties.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I heard that some states have laws against attempted suicide, but I've never heard of anyone arrested and sent to prison for trying to kill themselves.

It's called civil commitment and while you may not call a lockdown mental facility "jail", I'm sure there are many inmates that would strongly disagree.

The government does not exist to protect us from ourselves. If it did, then we wouldn't be allowed to smoke or drink, or do anything dangerous. That's why we have these things called liberties.

Tell that one to the millions of incarcerated people in jail for "possession of an illegal substance". The funny thing is, they use some pretty familiar arguments like "this doesn't hurt anybody" and when compared to "forcible felonys", their argument comes across as pretty convincing.

Like I said, it's the snub. For practical purposes, I'd be more interested in winning the adoption fight than anything else, but, if everyone knew we function quite normally as parents, there wouldn't be any opposition to us receiving the silly marriage licenses...Well, your "Biblical" views are offensive, at least as you express them...Well, the trick to it is that you confirmed my suspicion that you're more interested in keeping tally than in either enlightening or being enlightened.

:thud: WOW!!! You just keep impressing me over and over. That's it, your deep intelectuality is so enlightening I can't even respond except with being enlightened buyond comprehenshion. I must now reconsider all my offensive beliefs.

Keep digging yourself deeper, amigo.

okee dokee komrad

In theory, a state could ban all marriages, or all interfaith marriages, without violating anything explicitly stated in the Constitution. Equal protection of the laws must be maintained; otherwise, marriage can be restricted in lots of ways.

This would be a major violation of "Freedom of Religion" which IS a constitutionally protected issue. That is why people still get married dispite the sexual prefferrence or how many partners they chose to have. What is on the line is not whether or not they can get married but the legal recognition of it.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria