Whether the legalization of gay marriage logically requires the legalization of polygamy deponds on how and why gay marriage gets legalized.  If a court decides that the government has no business regulating who you love or what goes on in the bedroom (the kind of talk in Lawrence v. Texas), then that kind of rationalization could/should lead to legalization of polygamy.    However, if a court rules that the ban on gay marriage is gender discrimination, just like Loving v. Virginia involved race discrimination, then such a ruling should not require the legalization of polygamy.  No?

Right - the assumption, I think, is that our essential human nature is that we're all violent, selfish beasts who really want to grab all the food and mates we can while beating back the competition. Beneath the veneer of civilization, there's just the famous, constant war of all against all. Only the threat of jail time keeps anarchy from breaking out.

 Thus the fear of tampering with the delicate instruments of society: once you start tinkering around the edges, God knows where it will all end.

yourcenour

Mathhew, I usually agree with you, but I fail to see the connection between gay marriage and polyamory.  The principle supporting gay marriage is "men and women should be treated the same under the law."  The principle supporting polyamory is "people can marry whomever they want."  Different principles, leading to different outcomes.

Legalistically you're correct, but even that assumes the legalization of marriage will take place along legalistic, libertarian lines in courtrooms rather than a broad social recognition that same-gender relationships are just as valid as opposite-gender ones.  When Maggie Gallagher says "I'm also not comfortable making a slippery slope argument about polygamy because as I've said before I think genderless marriage is really an even more striking and destructive departure from our core marriage idea", she puts herself out on a limb that as decades goes on will become more and more lonely.  One could imagine her with her "Rule of Opposites" and "Rule of Two" argung for a "Rule of Species" even more universal than those two that would outlaw interracial marriage.  We are fast approaching the time when the best argument is not one of legalistic equality, but one of labelling those who believe same-sex relationships are immoral as the bigots that they are--just as most of us would label anyone who felt that way about interracial relationships.  Rather than getting the government out of marriage, we bring the government to our side.

In some ways, though, I wonder if the conservative fear that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy makes sense to them because polygamy and its patriarchal tendency is less horrifying to conservatives than it is to liberals. Conservatism and tradition aren't as threatened by the assymetry of polygamy as much as liberalism and democracy are.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Opening line Sopranos - one FBI agent to another

No one's ever gone broke underestimating the taste of the American public

This reminds me of Winston Churchill’s quip: "If you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re old, you have no brains."

Because it's not approving of interracial marriage at issue, it's approving of the legality of interracial marriage.  I may not want my children to marry non-Jews, for instance.  But I don't think it should be illegal for them to do so. 

 Re: And that even includes incest and pedophilia and child porn (actual child abuse is another matter.)

 Pedophilia are child porn are NOT a species of child abuse??!!?

Right - the assumption, I think, is that our essential human nature is that we're all violent, selfish beasts who really want to grab all the food and mates we can while beating back the competition. Beneath the veneer of civilization, there's just the famous, constant war of all against all. Only the threat of jail time keeps anarchy from breaking out.

 Thus the fear of tampering with the delicate instruments of society: once you start tinkering around the edges, God knows where it will all end.

And the opposite assumption is that people are all wonderful, that there was never war or brutality until civilization ruined it (particularly patriarchy) and that all you need is love.

Thus the paternalistic fascists hinder the wise and visionary revolutionaries. A revolution of moral rightousness and certitude which can't deliver us unto utopia too soon. Which is where we came from, of course.

Absurd stereotypes. They're mostly crap with a bit of truth distorted, on both sides.

Pedophilia are child porn are NOT a species of child abuse??!!?

No more so than homosexuality is abuse.  All are deviant, but to be abusive presumes that love and caring and tenderness are  not involved...and howcould we as a society be so presumptious to think that an adult cannot have a loving sexual relationship with a child...if homosexuals can love each other so can a pedophile love is partner.

If the child porn is done lovingly it should not be considered anymore abusive than fisting...it is all about what sexual proclivities are preferred.

In short, you're  expressing, at worse 'hate' not to be accepting of pedophilia and child pornography  and at best  'intolerance'.

And the "culture of intolerance" you seek to impose  will not be tolerated by those who seek acceptance of  their amorality by the rest of society.  Only the amoral get to be intolerant of those who are morally righteous. Woe be to you has morals and expresses intolerance of the amoral....at worse, you shall be condemned as   a 'hater' or  homophobic or bigot.... and at best  you will be accused of lacking compassion and understanding.

I think these posts should be removed from the site.

I think you should remove yourself along with  your  irrational feelings, thoughts, and opinions from this site. The post was exceptionally sarcastic, and obviously you lack the intelligence to understand that. Or you are unfamiliar with the most common 'progay rights and progay marriage" arguments

You guys are way off base here. Kids are too easily manipulated by adults to make these things legal

Maybe you are way off base. People use to have your same thinking about homosexuality and today it is legal.  Do you believe that kids are too easily manipulated into same gender sex nowadays or of viewing it as culturally acceptable? HUH?  Do you express this same concern for that sexually deviant behavior?

The point of the entire thread is that approval for of sexual deviant behavior is a slippery slope and once you start down that path, no telling what people will begin to claim is acceptable. Did you even read the blog issue?

Right now, homosexuals are telling the church that they do not have to abide by the religious doctrine and that they should be accepted as they are.  Who would have ever thought that? The unthinkable has to be explored many times to show how absurd the premise being posed is as well.

Gays are also pushing for same sex marriages and asserting that marriage should be redefined to include same gender partners.  So if marriage can be redefined and changed from the societal norm we know today, then so can pedophilia and child porn that is the point. Or are you so intolerant to ideas that you cannot grasp that thought 

Kids aren't prepared to make these kinds of decisions. I am stunned that any of you would post such outrageous statements.  Don't mess with kids.

Are you a kid? Most people are adolescents when they explore sex and unprepared for many many decisions, so?  You  sound just like one. No one is messing with kids.  If you lack the ability to discuss all sides of a issue leave the thread. You do not get to impose your arbitrary censorship under the auspices of youths lacking understanding.  In order to understand the issue it has to be discussed from all sides.

So climb out of your isolationist protectionist box and learn to think about the issues, not just have some knee jerk reaction.

And yet it's illegal in Israel for Jews to marry non-Jews. Would you say all those Israelis (including Israeli Jews) who agree with this to be discriminating against Jews?

No, I'd say they're discriminating against gentiles. 

I'd say they're discriminating against gentiles.

So for you, in Israel, Jews who support making it illegal for gentiles to marry non-gentiles are discriminating against gentiles, but Jews who support making it illegal for Jews to marry non-Jews are not discriminating against Jews. You're pretty silly.

The point, clearly stated, is that there is a different between homosexuality and pedophelia in that the former case is a relationship between two adults and the later case between an adult and a minor

That point is not clearly stated nor is it true. The facts are that homosexual acts occur between adults and minors as well. Point of fact, up to 40% of child molestation cases involve homosexual acts. While there may be homosexual relationshjps between adults that does not preclude them being between an adult and minor.

who society has already recognized as not able to effectively make decisions about ALOT of things, including sex. There isn't any room for debate on this point

There is indeed room for debate on that  point , when this society sentences minors to life sentences if they are  convicted of murder. This presumed idea that minors cannot effectively make decisions is not a universal view under the law. The law is conflicting on that point, when it comes to smoking, voting, sex, andor 'statutory rape...not to mention the fact that minors reproduce and are deemed to be capable enough to raise their offspring.

If you believe that homosexuality is just as much deviant as pedophelia, then you certainly have the right to do so. I would argue the answer is that it isn't for reasons that I don't think need stating.

Well not stating your reasoning is certainly your choice. However, unless you have some reasonable argument that refutes that both pedophilia and homosexuality are deviant sexual behaviors whatever your unstated reason may be it is illogical and simply your belief as opposed to the  factual statement I made.

All of that is beside the point, deviancy is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

No it is not. You must not understand the law...deviancy is the very underpinning of most laws based on equality.  Stats are used to demonstrate how actions deviate from the norm. The deviancy is in fact highlighted to assert inequality from the norm.. It seems that, rather,  it is your thinking and non-factual/uninformed assertions which are beside the point here.

Protecting individuals is the difference between the two concepts and there is no slippery slope that connects them in that manner.

 The slippery slope is not about protection. The slippery slope is about what is acceptable.  There are situations where incest occurs between adults...so how would that be about protecting anyone, and how is it protecting anyone when the 16 year old 'rapes' a 14 year old. Who is protected in cases of polygamy?  It is a very slippery slope indeed that has to do with morality and normalcy and not  solely your idea of  'consent'  being about protected people. Consent may be the  legal basis for tolearance  but it certainly does not make the behavior acceptable.

The law of which you speak--I have no knowledge of the actual existence of such a law--seems intended to prevent Israel's Jewish population from becoming diluted.  As such, it discriminates against Gentiles.  Just like the law in Loving discriminated against blacks, even though it also told whites they couldn't marry who they wanted

Moonbat, I have been following your position, and it seems to me that the law did not discriminate against either race. Rather, it discriminated against those individuals who wanted to have an interracial marriage.  The same would be true for the Jews and Gentiles, it does not disriminate against either Jew or Gentile, but rather those individuals who choose to marry and are of mixed faith.

How so?

Are you saying that the Loving  law established that it was discriminatory against blacks and not whites?  That just seems to be illogical, given that whites could no more marry blacks than whites could.  The same goes for the Jews/Gentiles scenario you pose.

How can the law establish that one race or religion was discriminated against when neither  race or religion could marry the other?

How was one race discriminated against moreso than another, and how would one religion be being discriminated against moreso than another?

It's not just me; the SUPREME COURT says it. ....  Read the case if you don't believe me. 

 

I did not say I did not believe you. I said it was illogical. Whether the Supreme Court says so or not is also not relevant

a law that burdens individuals without regard to their race--can be discriminatory if it serves a purpose to elevate one race over another.

 It seems to me that your above statement addresses individuals just as I said, and it is without regard to race, as I said also. Does the case say how one race is elevated over another? If not, then the reasoning is flawed is my point.

As logically,  if neither race can marry the other it is not discriminatory on the basis of one race vs. another, but rather on  the basis of all individuals who would chose to marry of different races. There is nothing elevating one race over another when neither race can marry the other.  It simply is illogical to even say such, on the basis of the information provided.

Unless whites could marry blacks it is equally discriminatory against whites as it blacks. And the very fact that whites could do so would mean that neither race would be discriminated against as the marriage would be interracial.

  If you refuse to accept Loving that's your business.

I did not refuse to accept Loving. I  merely challenged your premise that one race was discriminated vs. another on the basis of the law in Loving. It seems that law says what I asserted, which is that all individuals were discriminated against without regard to race and not  one race vs. another.

The whole thing that started this was the question of whether one could object to intragender marriage bans as gender discrimination using Loving and its take on race discrimination as precedent

Yes, that is how I understood the argument as well. It seems that Loving would not be the basis for any such argument based on what the actual law decided in that case. i.e. when it comes to gender Loving does not provide precedent for intragender marriage bans. 

 No such inequality , on the basis of race, was demonstrated in Loving and no such inequality has been shown for same gender partners either. i.e. you cannot show that all females or males would be discriminated against on the basis of gender to oppose DOMA's.

You misunderstand Loving.  I'm pretty sure you're doing it on purpose.  Bye.

You misunderstand Loving.  I'm pretty sure you're doing it on purpose.  Bye.

Geez, such wild accusation. As if you have some magic ball that enables you to determine my or anyone elses intent.  If I misunderstood Loving it was due to the interpretation you. (purposely?) provided.  And if you noted, I agreed with the majority of your reasoning on Loving on several posts....toodles