Zixar appears to be aiming at the uncritical sloganeering of Trefor's appeals to equality and liberty by demonstrating that equality and liberty could not reasonably be deemed controlling evaluative factors for all situations and issues.
If the consideration is merely economic, shouldn't would-be polygynists who could demonstrate sufficient fiscal capabilities have all the unions they might want and are able to support fully recognized as marriages by the states -- in the interest of equality and liberty?
I am opposing the invoking of equality and liberty as a basis for myopically evaluating whether or not states should recognize homosexual relationships as "marriages."
I have not appealed to the Constitution, and deem that document something that is quite far from having been divinely spirated.
Cynic, you're just raising the same point I did before. If marriage is open to homosexuals, why not polygamists (with an m, by the way - a polygynist would be very interesting though).
It seems as if people are less and less willing to be defined in the traditional ways. After all, we know a lot more about everything those who handed down those traditions.
Sort of.
Much of our tradition comes from our biology, and its profound influence upon our psychological and social behavior. Even today, in the modern world.
The armed forces and sales privileges are not a matter of society at large. Both hetero and homo soldiers are entitled to them because they are in the forces. They have voluntarily entered into the service of their country.
As to polygamy. You can at least argue that there is biblical precedent for it but it appears to have been practiced by the few rather than the many. Whereas the Utah Mormon fundamentalists may have several whom they call wives as far as the state is concerned they have only one legal wife. It is not illegal to cohabit with as many women as one wants as long as one has not attempted to enter into more than one legally recognised marriage. The state authorities can therefore only intervene when there is underage sex or benefit fraud or some other such reason. Yet there is still no recognition of even one legal same sex spouse. I do not hear of many calls for gay polyandry - like the polygamists of Utah, any number of gay men could live together and cohabit but you don;t hear much about that kind of arrangement - gays who want multiple partners can pick them up by various ways wihtout any intention of living with them or having a meaningful relationship.
But there are many gay people who want a meaningful relationship - they want to have one legally recognised partner. They can already find churches who will marry them in a religious ceremony but as far as the state is concerned it has no legal meaning or validity. This is the area of argument that one part of the population may have one legally recognised partner if they wish to and another section may not.
How one defines rights as opposed to privileges can be difficult, I agree. Even if you think marriage a privilege rather than a right, the inequality nevertheless remains that one part has this privilege and another does not. Looking at a level playing field any adult citizen who fulfils their obligations of citizenship, pays their taxes etc, contributes to society should expect the same privileges to be accorded to them as each other.
When it comes to framing documents the general rule of thumb is normally that what is not specifically forbidden or covered must be allowed and where the language is not watertight or capable of more than one interpretation, that is when the courts have to be brought in. This can happen in any country where the legislation is unclear and the judiciary is called in to rule upon points of law - it happens here in the House of Lords just as much as it does in the Supreme Court.
It is unfair to accuse the judiciary of interference - they are making rulings upon points of law that are brought before them precisely because the law is unclear. It is for the legislators to ensure that the laws being made are not flawed and unless they do then the judgements must stand until overruled by legislation or by a reversal.
There are literally whole libraries of case law precedents on all kinds of matters precisely because the legislation was badly framed and they remain in force unless or until fresh legislation replaces it.
what is written in the Constitution about marriage ?
as to polygamy and the constitution.... were africans given any voice ? did they believe in polygamy ? (mormons weren't around yet, were they?) how 'bout the native americans ?
was marriage based on the christian background of the Constitution guys ?
what is the basis of all of this and the laws instituted or built on after this ?
Trefor continues to compare the disparity of legal statuses between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages, and fails to show why polygyny should not be governmentally sanctioned, while homosexual relationships ride to state recognition behind a banner of liberty and equality.
"This brief glance at the structure of sexual mores in two pre-Christian civilizations suffices to prove the point: Biblical sexual morality is not universally defended and practiced in all societies. The sexual morality that has served as a foundation of Western civilization is a product of Christianity. Given the fact that sexual issues so deeply disturb contemporary society, it is essential for Christians self-consciously to defend Biblical morality, not some vague 'traditional morality' or 'traditional family values.'"
It's not for me to argue one way or another about polygyny or polygamy - I was merely making some observations about its practice cynic.
All I argue is that there is a level playing field. If the state allows two people to enter into the legal contract of marriage then it should allow any two people of either sex the same. The state does not allow anybody to have multiple marriages and therefore nobody is advantaged or discriminated against or rather everybody is discriminated against equally.
We are talking about legal recognitions, not what arrangements that are not legally recognised may occur.
Many heterosexual men have their harems, their mistresses, their "other women".
VPW was only legally married to Dorothea and LCM is only legally married to Donna.
Joseph Smith was only legally married to Emma no matter what other arrangements his religion came to allow at the time.
Yet Bob and Tom are not allowed even one legal marriage to each other.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Cynic
Zixar appears to be aiming at the uncritical sloganeering of Trefor's appeals to equality and liberty by demonstrating that equality and liberty could not reasonably be deemed controlling evaluative factors for all situations and issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well i'm glad you cleared that up for me, cynic
laughing my head off. i'm sorry...... ohgod.....
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
who the hell decides who controls evaluative factors for all situations and issues ?????
(i had to copy and paste what you said, cynic
;)-->)
are you telling me ? the constitution is god's word ? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha the more i read the more i am confused....
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
If the consideration is merely economic, shouldn't would-be polygynists who could demonstrate sufficient fiscal capabilities have all the unions they might want and are able to support fully recognized as marriages by the states -- in the interest of equality and liberty?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i so confused
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Cynic... how will divorce be handled then?
It's complicated enough now, with only one husband/one wife at a time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i think we should take away all married people's rights
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yeah, what makes THEM think they are better than us NON-marrieds?
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Ex,
I am opposing the invoking of equality and liberty as a basis for myopically evaluating whether or not states should recognize homosexual relationships as "marriages."
I have not appealed to the Constitution, and deem that document something that is quite far from having been divinely spirated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
Cynic, you're just raising the same point I did before. If marriage is open to homosexuals, why not polygamists (with an m, by the way - a polygynist would be very interesting though).
It seems as if people are less and less willing to be defined in the traditional ways. After all, we know a lot more about everything those who handed down those traditions.
Sort of.
Much of our tradition comes from our biology, and its profound influence upon our psychological and social behavior. Even today, in the modern world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
zix's analogies get more mysterious
The armed forces and sales privileges are not a matter of society at large. Both hetero and homo soldiers are entitled to them because they are in the forces. They have voluntarily entered into the service of their country.
As to polygamy. You can at least argue that there is biblical precedent for it but it appears to have been practiced by the few rather than the many. Whereas the Utah Mormon fundamentalists may have several whom they call wives as far as the state is concerned they have only one legal wife. It is not illegal to cohabit with as many women as one wants as long as one has not attempted to enter into more than one legally recognised marriage. The state authorities can therefore only intervene when there is underage sex or benefit fraud or some other such reason. Yet there is still no recognition of even one legal same sex spouse. I do not hear of many calls for gay polyandry - like the polygamists of Utah, any number of gay men could live together and cohabit but you don;t hear much about that kind of arrangement - gays who want multiple partners can pick them up by various ways wihtout any intention of living with them or having a meaningful relationship.
But there are many gay people who want a meaningful relationship - they want to have one legally recognised partner. They can already find churches who will marry them in a religious ceremony but as far as the state is concerned it has no legal meaning or validity. This is the area of argument that one part of the population may have one legally recognised partner if they wish to and another section may not.
How one defines rights as opposed to privileges can be difficult, I agree. Even if you think marriage a privilege rather than a right, the inequality nevertheless remains that one part has this privilege and another does not. Looking at a level playing field any adult citizen who fulfils their obligations of citizenship, pays their taxes etc, contributes to society should expect the same privileges to be accorded to them as each other.
When it comes to framing documents the general rule of thumb is normally that what is not specifically forbidden or covered must be allowed and where the language is not watertight or capable of more than one interpretation, that is when the courts have to be brought in. This can happen in any country where the legislation is unclear and the judiciary is called in to rule upon points of law - it happens here in the House of Lords just as much as it does in the Supreme Court.
It is unfair to accuse the judiciary of interference - they are making rulings upon points of law that are brought before them precisely because the law is unclear. It is for the legislators to ensure that the laws being made are not flawed and unless they do then the judgements must stand until overruled by legislation or by a reversal.
There are literally whole libraries of case law precedents on all kinds of matters precisely because the legislation was badly framed and they remain in force unless or until fresh legislation replaces it.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
question peas
what is written in the Constitution about marriage ?
as to polygamy and the constitution.... were africans given any voice ? did they believe in polygamy ? (mormons weren't around yet, were they?) how 'bout the native americans ?
was marriage based on the christian background of the Constitution guys ?
what is the basis of all of this and the laws instituted or built on after this ?
can we keep it secular ?
religion rules !!!!!!!!!
?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
another question sorry
if someone serves in the united states military and they die for our country, is their "spouse" entitled to benefits for the rest of their life ?
now, if a homosexual serves and has a life partner, is that partner entitled to benefits for the rest of their life ?
i have a million more questions but i think i'm tired
thanks you guys
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Trefor continues to compare the disparity of legal statuses between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages, and fails to show why polygyny should not be governmentally sanctioned, while homosexual relationships ride to state recognition behind a banner of liberty and equality.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
QQ,
My use of the word polygyny was quite intentional.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=polygyny&ls=a
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
okay so i'm still here
cynic, can you tell me in plain english what you think ? really i mean it
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Interesting piece.
"The Biblical Source of Western Sexual Morality," by Peter J. Leithart.
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm07_leithart.html
*****
Quoted from that piece:
"This brief glance at the structure of sexual mores in two pre-Christian civilizations suffices to prove the point: Biblical sexual morality is not universally defended and practiced in all societies. The sexual morality that has served as a foundation of Western civilization is a product of Christianity. Given the fact that sexual issues so deeply disturb contemporary society, it is essential for Christians self-consciously to defend Biblical morality, not some vague 'traditional morality' or 'traditional family values.'"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ohmygosh is that the best you can do ? can you talk like a person ?
okay okay sorry i'll go read that again
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what i'm getting is the bible is your only rule of faith and practice
did i get it right ?
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
No. I'll talk how I want. If this discussion disturbs you, pass on to some other one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
the discussion does not disturb me
and of course talk how you want
can you answer my other question about the bible being your only rule of faith and practice ?
thank you
sorry i offended you
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Scripture is my ultimate rule of faith and practice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thank you
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
It's not for me to argue one way or another about polygyny or polygamy - I was merely making some observations about its practice cynic.
All I argue is that there is a level playing field. If the state allows two people to enter into the legal contract of marriage then it should allow any two people of either sex the same. The state does not allow anybody to have multiple marriages and therefore nobody is advantaged or discriminated against or rather everybody is discriminated against equally.
We are talking about legal recognitions, not what arrangements that are not legally recognised may occur.
Many heterosexual men have their harems, their mistresses, their "other women".
VPW was only legally married to Dorothea and LCM is only legally married to Donna.
Joseph Smith was only legally married to Emma no matter what other arrangements his religion came to allow at the time.
Yet Bob and Tom are not allowed even one legal marriage to each other.
That is the discrimination.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.