Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 170
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Well that can be handled quite easy, don't you think? It can easily be moderated for polygamous unions. I don't see that as an obstacle or a reason to discriminate at all.
    I don't think it can be handled easily - it's likely a complicated fix.

    But assuming that the distribution of benefits can be evenly given to monogamous and polygamous couples, then there is no legitimate reason that I can think of to deny polygamous marriages equal recognition.

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Fangrim View Post
    The government also refuses same-sex marriage to all races, religions, sexes, and sexual orientations, and the illegality of polygamy obviously favors those individuals who prefer monogamous relationships.

    I'm not buying your attempt to differentiate same-sex marriage and polygamy.
    Ok. We can show that two people of the same sex live together not allowed to marry and do not get the same benefits as two other people living together and allowed to marry are given. Hence one group is discriminated against. We can also show three people living together unable to get married, but where is the control group of three people who are allowed to marry and have benefits not allowed to the other three? For it to be discrimination it has to be available to some and not others. Since two people can get married, it follows if two others can't it is discrimination. Since three people cannot get married, it follows that three other people not getting married is not because of discrimination.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Of course it's discrimination. But it's not discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion etc.

    It is, however, discrimination on the basis of marital preference. Anyone who wants to marry more than one person, can't do so. This applies to gays, straights, bis, asexuals, men, women, theists, atheists, everyone.

    The position is the same with same-sex marriage. If same-sex marriage isn't recognised by a State, anyone in that state who wants to marry a person of the same sex can't do so. This applies to gays, straights, bis, asexuals, men, women, theists, atheists, everyone.

    As far as discrimination is concerned, there is no real difference between the two positions. Neither discriminates based on one's sexuality or religion. However, each discriminates against a preference that may arise out of the person's sexuality or religion. Thus, a gay person may prefer to marry someone of the same sex and he can argue that the discrimination is (indirectly) against his sexuality. A Muslim may wish to marry several women and can argue that the discrimination is (indirectly) against his religion. In each case, the direct discrimination is simply against a person's marital preference.

    If we extend the legal meaning of "marriage" to apply to same-sex couples, there is no reason whatsoever why we should not extend the same right to polygamist unions.
    See above argument.
    Last edited by PerVirtuous; December 16th, 2008 at 02:21 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  3. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by PerVirtuous View Post
    Ok. We can show that two people of the same sex live together not allowed to marry and do not get the same benefits as two other people living together and allowed to marry are given. Hence one group is discriminated against. We can also show three people living together unable to get married, but where is the control group of three people who are allowed to marry and have benefits not allowed to the other three? For it to be discrimination it has to be available to some and not others. Since two people can get married, it follows if two others can't it is discrimination. Since three people cannot get married, it follows that three other people not getting married is not because of discrimination.
    I see where you're coming from, PerV. But that's not a correct view of the matter in this context. The issue is not about the rights of the "2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc" people in question. The issue is about the rights of an individual to enter into a union of his choosing. The law is discriminating against ME because I can't enter into a legally recognised polygamous union. If you read the Equal Protection Clause (US Constitution but have a look at others too if you like), you will see that it's the PERSON whose rights are protected. Not those of groups of people.

    If you want to strictly insist that discrimination is just about things being available to some and not to others then your reasoning goes against legalising SSM. Marriage is available to everyone, of any sex, race, education, religion, sexual orientation. Since NO ONE is allowed to enter into a same-sex marriage, there is no "control group" (to use your terminology) Thus, there's no discrimination. Right? Wrong. Even though a gay person can get married, he can't have the type of marriage he would like. He wants to have a marriage where his spouse is also male. By the same token, I can get married. But I can't have the type of marriage I would like. I want to be able to marry a number of women. To deny me that right is to discriminate against my preference just like to deny SSM to the gay man is to discriminate against his preference.

    You see, you can't just arbitrarily choose to draw a line on the issue of numbers. The very legal definition of marriage is in issue here. You're seeking to have it extended to apply to individuals of the same gender. I agree. But I also seek to have it extended to apply to polygamous unions.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't think it can be handled easily - it's likely a complicated fix.

    But assuming that the distribution of benefits can be evenly given to monogamous and polygamous couples, then there is no legitimate reason that I can think of to deny polygamous marriages equal recognition.
    It can't be that complicated. Take the total number of adults in a polygamous union, divide that number by 2 and you arrive at the number of "nominal couples" within that union. Give each of those couples the same amount of benefits as a monogamous couple would have. The effect is the same as a number of monogamous couples living in the same house. It might be that some of the benefits would have to be adjusted for the fact that other people live in the same house. But that already must be happening with monogamous couples. Easy fix.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    Let's see how dynamic by concept the definition of marriage has been throughout history and so is at present.

    Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa................
    That's fine. If you look at my first post in this thread, I am actually PRO SSM.

    The post you are replying to simply addressed JustMe's examples and pointed out to the fact that they do not really show different meanings of marriage.

    I agree that there are a variety of cultures where a variety of things are called "marriage". I agree that there are legal systems that recognise things we do not recognise. In OUR law, marriage has always substantially meant the same thing. That doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

    I believe that the rights of members of those other cultures and religions have to be recognised by our law. Hence, I say that SSM must be legally recognised. And the same applies to polygamy. I also think I should finally be able to marry my goat.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    But people who want polygamous relationships want more spouses, not one. Itís not a question of them not being able to marry someone at all (as seems to be intrinsic to the condition of being homosexual Ė they are practically unable to marry anyone at all since theyíre limited to people they wouldnít want to marry) .
    It's a question of them not being able to have the type of marriage they believe in. It discriminates against their religious and cultural backgrounds and beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I donít see whatís unreasonable or unfair about saying marriage = 2 consenting adults. Anything other than that just seems like pure greed and/or insanity (in cases like man + dog and so on), hence ĎScrew themí.
    I can't see why you think that man+dog is greed or insanity. If I love my dog and want to make that fact known publicly and want to take that very special step, why shouldn't I be able to?

    Why do you say that it's reasonable to define marriage as 1+1 but it's not reasonable to define it as male+female?

    Are you basing that on reasonability or just on your own personal preference and prejudice?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Maybe it all comes down to the nebulous question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice Ė thatís the real issue here, isnít it? Because it seems to me that if it were clear that sexual orientation could be chosen, then allowing same-sex marriages would indeed Ė as you say Ė open wide the floodgates for whatever a person wants a marriage to be rather than trying to understand what it ought to be. Conversely, if it could demonstrated that sexual orientation cannot be chosen, then disallowing same-sex marriage would indeed be unfairly discriminative.
    I've thought about that from this perspective as well. But the problem is that the law doesn't limit discrimination to matters that are "choice". Discrimination on the grounds of religion is equally unlawful. And religion is something you can definitely choose. Heck, you can even choose your gender these days. And a woman can definitely choose whether or not to get pregnant. And yet, all of these things attract legal protection against unequal treatment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Any heterosexual person can choose to live with only one human spouse despite religious and/or social pandering or personal desire. But with homosexuals, it seems to me that they are by and large unable to marry even one same-sex human spouse to whom they are by nature compelled to be attracted. Thatís where itís unfair, in my opinion (with full appreciation with just how much weight opinion doesnít carry).
    Any homosexual can live with one spouse. It just won't be the person they would like. It won't be the marriage they like. Equally, a polygamist can't have the marriage he would like. His religious and cultural beliefs and background are given UNEQUAL TREATMENT for no real reason whatsoever. It's therefore also unfair.
    Last edited by Allocutus; December 16th, 2008 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  4. #44
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    It's a question of them not being able to have the type of marriage they believe in. It discriminates against their religious and cultural backgrounds and beliefs.
    That sounds back-asswards to me. As I recall the issue was that gays (or non-heteros) were prevented from being able to marry the person they want to marry due to limited marriage types, but the way you describe it is as if some people want to develop more marriage types so that they can explore the types of relationships they may want to be in (this is especially true when you factor in the nebulous question I forwarded earlier). Maybe it's a useless technical difference, but it seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse, AND you're ignoring the cart.
    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I can't see why you think that man+dog is greed or insanity. If I love my dog and want to make that fact known publicly and want to take that very special step, why shouldn't I be able to?
    I'll have to completely admit a personal bias on that one. I might be inclined to argue that such a relationship is divergent enough from societal "norms" to justify regulation, but I'm not interested enough in it to pursue it further, so point conceded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I've thought about that from this perspective as well. But the problem is that the law doesn't limit discrimination to matters that are "choice". Discrimination on the grounds of religion is equally unlawful. And religion is something you can definitely choose. Heck, you can even choose your gender these days. And a woman can definitely choose whether or not to get pregnant. And yet, all of these things attract legal protection against unequal treatment.
    I think thatís a bit of a reach. Can a law be called religiously discriminate if the law wasnít made because of the religion? Iím asking seriously, because Iím trying to get my head around the idea. I donít think itís a problem, but then again Iím one of those guys who believes an employer should not be forced to accommodate things like time set aside for prayer or veils that prevent proper identification. Religion gets its ass kissed too much as it is, but I digress.

  5. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    That sounds back-asswards to me. As I recall the issue was that gays (or non-heteros) were prevented from being able to marry the person they want to marry due to limited marriage types, but the way you describe it is as if some people want to develop more marriage types so that they can explore the types of relationships they may want to be in (this is especially true when you factor in the nebulous question I forwarded earlier). Maybe it's a useless technical difference, but it seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse, AND you're ignoring the cart.
    The issue is that the legal definition of marriage doesn't include "same sex unions". To a homosexual it has the effect that he can't marry the person he wants to. But that's because a same-sex marriage is legally impossible. The homosexual can't have the type of marriage he wants.

    I, as a polygamist also can't marry the people I want to. They're Mary, Joanna, Francine and Penolumpa. I can't marry them because law doesn't recognise the type of marriage that I want. Such a marriage is legally impossible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I'll have to completely admit a personal bias on that one. I might be inclined to argue that such a relationship is divergent enough from societal "norms" to justify regulation, but I'm not interested enough in it to pursue it further, so point conceded.
    But that's not justified bias. There's nothing wrong with me marrying my goat, Dio. I love my goat, I would treat it right (I promise!) I would take it places, everywhere I go the goat would be by my side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I think thatís a bit of a reach. Can a law be called religiously discriminate if the law wasnít made because of the religion? Iím asking seriously, because Iím trying to get my head around the idea. I donít think itís a problem, but then again Iím one of those guys who believes an employer should not be forced to accommodate things like time set aside for prayer or veils that prevent proper identification. Religion gets its ass kissed too much as it is, but I digress.
    I don't think you're correct. Such a position would make it only too easy for hidden discrimination to get past legal scrutiny. It's the effect that matters. If you look at the Equal Protection Clause (US), you'll see that the States have an obligation not to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This doesn't just mean that the State can't set out deliberately to make someone's life hell. It actually means the State has to GIVE EQUAL PROTECTION to everyone. This of course includes equally protecting every person against consequences of laws that might (albeit unintentionally) tend to lead to some negative consequences. Thus, the State has an obligation to protect everyone against laws that would tend to impinge on a person's right to freely excercise their religion (First Amedment comes into play here as well!)

    Of course there are various legal tests for deciding whether some differential treatment breaches these principles. I could go into all the silly technicalities but I won't at this point. I'll just say that broadly speaking (and I'm sure you'll agree with this on moral grounds) it's wrong to discriminate unless there's some reason that is so powerful as to make it right to do so. The fact that marriage carries with it a certain definition is not enough of a reason, as can be seen from the SSM argument itself.

    As you know, I am an atheist. I might agree that religion gets is butt kissed too much. But I'm not advocating a religion or any religion's rights here. I'm advocating that people have a right to choose their religion and to exercise their religion. I'm also advocating the fact that people have the right to marry who they want. If I want to marry Mary, Joanna, Francine and Penolumpa then it's discriminatory for the government to deny me that just like it is discriminatory for the government to deny a homosexual his right to SSM.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  6. #46
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    The issue is that the legal definition of marriage doesn't include "same sex unions". To a homosexual it has the effect that he can't marry the person he wants to. But that's because a same-sex marriage is legally impossible. The homosexual can't have the type of marriage he wants.

    I, as a polygamist also can't marry the people I want to. They're Mary, Joanna, Francine and Penolumpa. I can't marry them because law doesn't recognise the type of marriage that I want. Such a marriage is legally impossible.
    What if we assume that sexual orientiation can't be chosen; wouldn't that make the two mutually exclusive and as such, deserving of individual treatment?
    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    But that's not justified bias. There's nothing wrong with me marrying my goat, Dio. I love my goat, I would treat it right (I promise!) I would take it places, everywhere I go the goat would be by my side.
    Putting aside the question of whether or not animals have rights or whether or not animals have been shown to be capable of consenting to such a relationship, I'm guessing you missed the part where I conceded this bit, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I don't think you're correct. Such a position would make it only too easy for hidden discrimination to get past legal scrutiny. It's the effect that matters. If you look at the Equal Protection Clause (US), you'll see that the States have an obligation not to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This doesn't just mean that the State can't set out deliberately to make someone's life hell. It actually means the State has to GIVE EQUAL PROTECTION to everyone. This of course includes equally protecting every person against consequences of laws that might (albeit unintentionally) tend to lead to some negative consequences. Thus, the State has an obligation to protect everyone against laws that would tend to impinge on a person's right to freely excercise their religion (First Amedment comes into play here as well!)

    Of course there are various legal tests for deciding whether some differential treatment breaches these principles. I could go into all the silly technicalities but I won't at this point. I'll just say that broadly speaking (and I'm sure you'll agree with this on moral grounds) it's wrong to discriminate unless there's some reason that is so powerful as to make it right to do so. The fact that marriage carries with it a certain definition is not enough of a reason, as can be seen from the SSM argument itself.

    As you know, I am an atheist. I might agree that religion gets is butt kissed too much. But I'm not advocating a religion or any religion's rights here. I'm advocating that people have a right to choose their religion and to exercise their religion. I'm also advocating the fact that people have the right to marry who they want. If I want to marry Mary, Joanna, Francine and Penolumpa then it's discriminatory for the government to deny me that just like it is discriminatory for the government to deny a homosexual his right to SSM.
    To what extent can religion more or less write their own rules then?

  7. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    What if we assume that sexual orientiation can't be chosen; wouldn't that make the two mutually exclusive and as such, deserving of individual treatment?
    If you look at the legal concept of suspect classification, you will see that the American system recognises certain groups that are to be protected with "strict scrutiny". This classification includes religion, precisely for the reason you have alluded to. Religion is legally held to be immutable.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification)

    You'll find it interesting that the Supreme Court has found that Religion IS immuitable while it has never given full immutability status to sexual orientation. (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/creech/080816)

    While you and I might disagree with this, that is the law. Of course, we can argue that the law should be changed. In fact, given the post-conventional nature of this thread, that's the very point in discussion.

    As for religion, I haven't seen the legal rationale behind holding that it is immutable. However, I believe that it must be on the basis that freedom of religion is such a fundamental right that no person should be required to change his or her religion to receive equal treatment in exchange. Indeed, freedom of religion is in itself expressly granted by the Constitution. I therefore agree that religion should retain its immutable status.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Putting aside the question of whether or not animals have rights or whether or not animals have been shown to be capable of consenting to such a relationship, I'm guessing you missed the part where I conceded this bit, right?
    I haven't missed it, Dio. The problem is that your concession is a qualified concession. In other words it's sort of like saying "I plead guilty cos I don't wanna spend money on my lawyer. But I DIDN'T DO IT".

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    To what extent can religion more or less write their own rules then?
    One of the requirements in deciding whether or not a group is a suspect group and should be given protection with "strict scrutiny" is that the group must share a history of discrimination. This arguably stops someone from coming up with a brand new, previously unheard of ideology with the sole purpose of achieving the "suspect group" status.

    In the context of polygamy, there is no question that it has been discriminated in the USA in so far as polygamous marriage is concerned.

    The bottom line of all this is that legally polygamy has to be protected with higher scrutiny than do same-sex unions. That's because polygamy is based in religious belief and same-sex unions are not. Legally, religion is immutable and homosexuality is not.

    My proposed marriage to my goat, on the other hand, is not so lucky. It seems that I won't be able to claim "suspect group" classification and therefore will not be considered with "strict scrutiny". My case would be treated by the same standards as the case for SSM.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  8. #48
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    If you look at the legal concept of suspect classification, you will see that the American system recognises certain groups that are to be protected with "strict scrutiny". This classification includes religion, precisely for the reason you have alluded to. Religion is legally held to be immutable.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification)

    You'll find it interesting that the Supreme Court has found that Religion IS immuitable while it has never given full immutability status to sexual orientation. (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/creech/080816)

    While you and I might disagree with this, that is the law. Of course, we can argue that the law should be changed. In fact, given the post-conventional nature of this thread, that's the very point in discussion.

    As for religion, I haven't seen the legal rationale behind holding that it is immutable. However, I believe that it must be on the basis that freedom of religion is such a fundamental right that no person should be required to change his or her religion to receive equal treatment in exchange. Indeed, freedom of religion is in itself expressly granted by the Constitution. I therefore agree that religion should retain its immutable status.
    Well, I can get behind that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I haven't missed it, Dio. The problem is that your concession is a qualified concession. In other words it's sort of like saying "I plead guilty cos I don't wanna spend money on my lawyer. But I DIDN'T DO IT".
    1) Take what you can get; don't be greedy. 2) Pursuing this bit would be off-topic and get into animal's rights and so on and 2a) I'm not interested in that discussion anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    One of the requirements in deciding whether or not a group is a suspect group and should be given protection with "strict scrutiny" is that the group must share a history of discrimination. This arguably stops someone from coming up with a brand new, previously unheard of ideology with the sole purpose of achieving the "suspect group" status.

    In the context of polygamy, there is no question that it has been discriminated in the USA in so far as polygamous marriage is concerned.

    The bottom line of all this is that legally polygamy has to be protected with higher scrutiny than do same-sex unions. That's because polygamy is based in religious belief and same-sex unions are not. Legally, religion is immutable and homosexuality is not.

    My proposed marriage to my goat, on the other hand, is not so lucky. It seems that I won't be able to claim "suspect group" classification and therefore will not be considered with "strict scrutiny". My case would be treated by the same standards as the case for SSM.
    Well, you've sold me on this bit as well. Makes sense to me.

  9. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    It can't be that complicated. Take the total number of adults in a polygamous union, divide that number by 2 and you arrive at the number of "nominal couples" within that union. Give each of those couples the same amount of benefits as a monogamous couple would have. The effect is the same as a number of monogamous couples living in the same house. It might be that some of the benefits would have to be adjusted for the fact that other people live in the same house. But that already must be happening with monogamous couples. Easy fix.
    If benefits always equalled dollars, it would be that easy (same amount per household divided evenly amongst the number of married adults). But how about, say, days off for a spouses parent's funeral? A man certainly can't take a 1/5 day off. Or how about access to military store? 1/5 access per spouse?

    I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem, but it's not an easy fix.

    But in essence we agree. Beyond the issue of unfair distribution of benefits (regardless of the ease or difficulty of the "fix") there is no legitimate reason to deny polygamous couples the right to marry the same as monogamous couples.

  10. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Hence, I say that SSM must be legally recognised. And the same applies to polygamy. I also think I should finally be able to marry my goat.
    You are certainly comparing apples to oranges here, SSM, polygamy and traditional marriage ALL involve consenting adults on both sides of the aisle, which a goat is certainly not.

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I see where you're coming from, PerV. But that's not a correct view of the matter in this context. The issue is not about the rights of the "2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc" people in question. The issue is about the rights of an individual to enter into a union of his choosing. The law is discriminating against ME because I can't enter into a legally recognised polygamous union. If you read the Equal Protection Clause (US Constitution but have a look at others too if you like), you will see that it's the PERSON whose rights are protected. Not those of groups of people.

    If you want to strictly insist that discrimination is just about things being available to some and not to others then your reasoning goes against legalising SSM. Marriage is available to everyone, of any sex, race, education, religion, sexual orientation. Since NO ONE is allowed to enter into a same-sex marriage, there is no "control group" (to use your terminology) Thus, there's no discrimination. Right? Wrong. Even though a gay person can get married, he can't have the type of marriage he would like. He wants to have a marriage where his spouse is also male. By the same token, I can get married. But I can't have the type of marriage I would like. I want to be able to marry a number of women. To deny me that right is to discriminate against my preference just like to deny SSM to the gay man is to discriminate against his preference.

    You see, you can't just arbitrarily choose to draw a line on the issue of numbers. The very legal definition of marriage is in issue here. You're seeking to have it extended to apply to individuals of the same gender. I agree. But I also seek to have it extended to apply to polygamous unions.
    To qualify for the legal definition of discrimination it needs to be shown that some people are being treated differently than others by the government. It can be easily demonstrated that two lovers are allowed to marry. Two other lovers are not allowed to marry. That makes for discrimination.

    Since there are no multiple marriages, there is no one allowed to while others are not. You are saying that "enter into a union". But that is not a legal argument.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  12. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by PerVirtuous View Post
    Since there are no multiple marriages, there is no one allowed to while others are not. You are saying that "enter into a union". But that is not a legal argument.
    But isn't that the same as saying "since there are no gay marriages, no one is allowed into them and therefore there's no discrimination"?

  13. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by PerVirtuous View Post
    To qualify for the legal definition of discrimination it needs to be shown that some people are being treated differently than others by the government. It can be easily demonstrated that two lovers are allowed to marry. Two other lovers are not allowed to marry. That makes for discrimination.

    Since there are no multiple marriages, there is no one allowed to while others are not. You are saying that "enter into a union". But that is not a legal argument.
    That's not a correct analysis. If you insist on that analysis, then it can equally be claimed that a homosexual is allowed to enter into a marriage. Just not the type of marrige he likes. He can't marry who he wants to. I can't marry who I want to either; namely Joanna, Anne, Alice and Mary.

    Thus, there is differential treatment.

    1. Some people are allowed to have the type of marriage that their religion mandates. Others are not.

    2. Some people are allowed to marry who they want to while others are not.

    In fact, as I mentioned earlier, polygamy has a stronger claim than same sex marriage does because polygamy is premised on religion. Religion expressly is protected by the Constitution and has been held by the Supreme Court to be immutable. Sexual orientation is not expressly protected by the Constitution and has not been held to be immutable.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    You are certainly comparing apples to oranges here, SSM, polygamy and traditional marriage ALL involve consenting adults on both sides of the aisle, which a goat is certainly not.
    And how does that matter?
    We're discussing changing the legal definition of marriage anyway. Show me one reason why I should not be able to marry my beloved goat.
    Last edited by Allocutus; December 17th, 2008 at 04:06 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  14. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    And how does that matter?
    We're discussing changing the legal definition of marriage anyway. Show me one reason why I should not be able to marry my beloved goat.
    Because the goal is not to change it to whatever anyone wants, it is to change to allow for relationships among consenting adults (only) to be able to enjoy of the same rights as monogamous straight marriages do now. a human + a goat is not a relationship between consenting adults (one of them isn't).

  15. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    Because the goal is not to change it to whatever anyone wants, it is to change to allow for relationships among consenting adults (only) to be able to enjoy of the same rights as monogamous straight marriages do now. a human + a goat is not a relationship between consenting adults (one of them isn't).
    Whose goal?
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  16. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Whose goal?
    Mine for once, but if it is your personal opinion that adult consent from all parties involved is not required then I am sure you must also support pedophilia, do you?

  17. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    Mine for once, but if it is your personal opinion that adult consent from all parties involved is not required then I am sure you must also support pedophilia, do you?
    By the same logic if someone advocates the right to bear arms then they must surely support mass murder.

    But to the point... No, I don't think human animals should enter into marriage without consent. However, if the marriage is with a non-human animal then the latter need not consent. You can't require an animal to consent as they are not (probably) able to anyway. Therefore, marriage must be redefined to mean something like this:

    "A union between a human and one or more humans or animals, such that any humans party to the union enter it freely and consensually".
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  18. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    No, I don't think human animals should enter into marriage without consent.
    And why according to you would consent be necessary/required among "human animals".

  19. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    And why according to you would consent be necessary/required among "human animals".
    The same reason why it is currently required. Human animals have a fundamental right to freedom. Making them enter into a marriage without their consent would be a violation of that right.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  20. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union - discrimination in term

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    The same reason why it is currently required. Human animals have a fundamental right to freedom. Making them enter into a marriage without their consent would be a violation of that right.
    And what is the reason why non human animal + human animal marriages are currently banned?

 

 
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 04:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage Legalized in Connecticut
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 17th, 2008, 11:28 PM
  3. Muhammed was an example for all time
    By Montalban in forum Religion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: April 8th, 2006, 09:47 PM
  4. Where are you, politically?
    By starcreator in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: February 4th, 2006, 05:48 PM
  5. What is Marriage?
    By HappyLady in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: October 5th, 2004, 03:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •