Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[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?

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

...and laws can be changed. What is to stop that from happening?

The will of the majority can also be overridden by judicial fiat. Where do you stop it and how could you if you wanted to? So if someone brings a suit to allow some other form of marriage (you pick your poison) a judge just has to agree to hear the suit and may at his whim overturn the law prohibiting it. Hence the slippery slope.

[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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Since it's my cause du jour, I want to make a distinction between religious polygamy and other forms of consensually non-monogamous relationships. The latter is entirely different from the former.

[MysticCat]

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.

Starting with assumption that your remark was over his head. While I don't think a slippery slope is a completely off-the-wall concern in this area (though not nearly to the degree many are trying to make it), you're on a totally different hill because your example by definition involves minors, which raises an entirely different set of legal concerns.

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

MC can you elaborate on why SCOTUS is not likely to take up the case if it is overturned on appeal?

It's just a guess, and I could easily be wrong. Four of the nine justices have to vote to take a case for the Supreme Court to hear it. As a general rule, they prefer to take cases where there is a divurgence of opinions among the circuit courts of appeals -- split circuits, it's called. They view their job as being to resolve the split among the circuits.

Also as a general rule, they prefer to let cases percolate up among the circuits to see if a split or a consensus develops. Why should they use up their limited time on a case if the circuits end up being in agreement?

So my hunch on this one is that if the Ninth Circuit reverses, which would basically perserve a status quo in that circuit, they'll think it prudent to wait and see what happens in other cases in other circuits. But if the Ninth Circuit affirms, I think at least four of them will think the decision constitutes enough of a legal shift with potential effects outside California and the Ninth Circuit that they have to step in and decide themselves.

But I could be quite wrong.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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

Really???? In which states can first cousins marry?

[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.