Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[Ghostwriter]

I hear that NAMBLA is looking for legitimatcy in the marriage arena now. Their name/acronymn indicates that it is about "love" after all.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I hear that NAMBLA is looking for legitimatcy in the marriage arena now. Their name/acronymn indicates that it is about "love" after all.

You're really going to draw a parallel between consenting adults of the same sex and . . . well, it would be pretty silly to compare to ANYTHING, but particularly, using children in the comparison is absurd.

The entire "WHERE DOES IT END?!? CAN I MARRY LAMP?" line of thought is fairly ridiculous as it is - it seems clear that the line is drawn at 2 consenting adults - but use of NAMBLA seems unnecessarily cute, too. Well done dude.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You're really going to draw a parallel between consenting adults of the same sex and . . . well, it would be pretty silly to compare to ANYTHING, but particularly, using children in the comparison is absurd.

The entire "WHERE DOES IT END?!? CAN I MARRY LAMP?" line of thought is fairly ridiculous as it is - it seems clear that the line is drawn at 2 consenting adults - but use of NAMBLA seems unnecessarily cute, too. Well done dude.

Probably comes from the same place as the belief that all gay men are predators trying to seduce and rape children or that gay men are sexually aggressive toward men simply because they're men (not because of any real attraction or emotional connection).

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Probably comes from the same place as the belief that all gay men are predators trying to seduce and rape children or that gay men are sexually aggressive toward men simply because they're men (not because of any real attraction or emotional connection).

My remark about NAMBLA is quite apparently over your head. It is more a statement about the slippery slope that may be in front of us (some posters got it and, as was thier right, refuted it) With people like you (who believe anything goes) the NAMBLA statement is probably not that far out of the realm of possibility. See, I can make stupid assumptions too.

How about this? I don't give a damn about what people do in their own lives or behind their own closed doors. I believe that gay people should be allowed "civil unions" and should be allowed to take care of their significant others and have certain powers of attorney. I do not believe that they should be discriminated against in any way shape or form.

But let's take this further. Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives? This type marriage does not hurt others and if they really love each other than why not? The notion that sexual love should be the sole criterion of marriage is in my opinion erroneous.

There are real "slippery slopes" that can be now considered not out of the realm of possibility. Bigamy, polygamy and communal/group marriage are among these.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives?

I can answer in 2 words or less






BIRTH DEFECTS!

INBREEDING!


continue.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I can answer in 2 words or less






BIRTH DEFECTS!

INBREEDING!


continue.

So what? Birth defects happen to children in marriages that are not among close relatives.

Many monarchies survived hundreds of years inbreeding. I would bet that mankind survived due to inbreeding in its early years.

Bigamy, polygamy, communal/group marriages. Any problems with these? Just wondering where others draw their lines as there are many out there who would postulate for rights that you might want to deny them. What would give you that right?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

So what? Birth defects happen to children in marriages that are not among close relatives.

Many monarchies survived hundreds of years inbreeding. I would bet that mankind survived due to inbreeding in its early years.

Bigamy, polygamy, communal/group marriages. Any problems with these? Just wondering where others draw their lines as there are many out there who would postulate for rights that you might want to deny them. What would give you that right?

All of what you just mentioned are already outlawed in most states...and?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Bigamy, polygamy, communal/group marriages. Any problems with these? Just wondering where others draw their lines as there are many out there who would postulate for rights that you might want to deny them. What would give you that right?

This one is the easy one - we have nearly 200 years' worth of rulings that there is a rational basis for banning polygamy and communal marriages, mostly based on the potential for abuse and the difficulty of legally sanctioning (and enforcing) those contracts (for example, how can we be sure that the first wife is "OK" with the second marriage, free of coercion?). Now, if things have changed enough that polygamy will equal something other than "one man, many wives, starting from age 14" then I'd be for it, presuming the contractual difficulties could be sorted out - after all, what do I care, and once we've eliminated that harm that is the rational basis for the ban, who is getting hurt?

Close relatives is dicier, but rooted in science - in many places, first cousins are fine, for example.

Either way though, "slippery slope" is a terrible reason to fight something, particularly when your worst-case scenario for falling down the slope is brothers/sisters or bigamy - I'm not exactly sure those are apocalyptic consequences.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

My remark about NAMBLA is quite apparently over your head. It is more a statement about the slippery slope that may be in front of us (some posters got it and, as was thier right, refuted it) With people like you (who believe anything goes) the NAMBLA statement is probably not that far out of the realm of possibility. See, I can make stupid assumptions too.

How about this? I don't give a damn about what people do in their own lives or behind their own closed doors. I believe that gay people should be allowed "civil unions" and should be allowed to take care of their significant others and have certain powers of attorney. I do not believe that they should be discriminated against in any way shape or form.

But let's take this further. Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives? This type marriage does not hurt others and if they really love each other than why not? The notion that sexual love should be the sole criterion of marriage is in my opinion erroneous.

There are real "slippery slopes" that can be now considered not out of the realm of possibility. Bigamy, polygamy and communal/group marriage are among these.

Since my point was completely lost to you, I'll rephrase. Comparing gay marriage to NAMBLA is absurd. The very fact that you're concerned about a possible slippery slope indicates that you believe there is an inevitable and dangerous "next step." You're being hysterical.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Since my point was completely lost to you, I'll rephrase. Comparing gay marriage to NAMBLA is absurd. The very fact that you're concerned about a possible slippery slope indicates that you believe there is an inevitable and dangerous "next step." You're being hysterical.

Pretty much.

I'm sure heterosexual polygamists/bigamists/etc have been seeking reversals in the outlawing of their lifestyles (with no success) long before Prop 8 was an issue. To think that this will lead to a "law reversal free-for-all" is silly.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Pretty much.

I'm sure heterosexual polygamists/bigamists/etc have been seeking reversals in the outlawing of their lifestyles (with no success) long before Prop 8 was an issue. To think that this will lead to a "law reversal free-for-all" is silly.

and a quick yahoo search yielded up these results

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Pretty much.

I'm sure heterosexual polygamists/bigamists/etc have been seeking reversals in the outlawing of their lifestyles (with no success) long before Prop 8 was an issue. To think that this will lead to a "law reversal free-for-all" is silly.

On that note, entirely overlooking any moral issues people have with polygamy, I'm curious what the effect would be of legalizing this form of marriage. We've discussed it before on GC, but those forums always polarize and then dissolve.

I'm thinking, for example, with medical insurance, if you put multiple wives/husbands on your plan, it would just cost more.

I understand that we aren't set up to handle multiple partners in a marriage, so there would have to be some adjustments to handle things like sudden death with no will (i.e. who gets first dibs).

It just doesn't seem that difficult to accommodate the change. They're finagling it anyway. Why not impose some regulations to enforce protection of the multiple wives/husbands?

Rhetorical questions...no derailing intended.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

No you are being naive.

No, I understand what you're saying. I'm just not scared.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Since my point was completely lost to you, I'll rephrase. Comparing gay marriage to NAMBLA is absurd. The very fact that you're concerned about a possible slippery slope indicates that you believe there is an inevitable and dangerous "next step." You're being hysterical.

No you are being naive.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

My remark about NAMBLA is quite apparently over your head. It is more a statement about the slippery slope that may be in front of us (some posters got it and, as was thier right, refuted it) With people like you (who believe anything goes) the NAMBLA statement is probably not that far out of the realm of possibility. See, I can make stupid assumptions too.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not something you should actually worry about.

How about this? I don't give a damn about what people do in their own lives or behind their own closed doors. I believe that gay people should be allowed "civil unions" and should be allowed to take care of their significant others and have certain powers of attorney. I do not believe that they should be discriminated against in any way shape or form.

So let them be married instead of having civil unions so they're not discriminated against in any form.

But let's take this further. Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives? This type marriage does not hurt others and if they really love each other than why not? The notion that sexual love should be the sole criterion of marriage is in my opinion erroneous.

Besides of public health reasons there is also a high potential of abuse due to power differentials inherent in the relationship. I don't have a problem with it as long as there aren't kids and there truly isn't a power differential. It would probably require siblings to grow up separate for that to actually happen. But I appear to be on of the few people who doesn't have an incest squick button.

There are real "slippery slopes" that can be now considered not out of the realm of possibility. Bigamy, polygamy and communal/group marriage are among these.

A) No those aren't actually slippery slopes.
B) You're redundant.
C) Bigamy is fraud, it will always be illegal.
D) Polygamy as practiced by FLDS groups is child abuse.
E) Polyamory/group relationships are good things when freely consented to, but there's no way to make it equal to marriage with all the legal entanglings involved. People in long term group/poly relationships often have unofficial marriage ceremonies. However it's implausible and improbably, however unfortunate that legal marriage could be extended to more than 2 people.

Stop caring what consensual adults do in bed.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I hear that NAMBLA is looking for legitimatcy in the marriage arena now. Their name/acronymn indicates that it is about "love" after all.