Three Men Marry (each other) in Colombia

[The Horn]

So what ? Big deal . Who cares ? No, this is not going to lead to polygamy being legalized everywhere . And even it polygamy were legal in more countries , so what ?
The Bible has no problem with it . "Slippery slope " my foot ! This certainly isn't going to lead to pedophilia, incest , bestiality etc being legalized anywhere . Much ado about nothing .

 

[glassjester]

"Slippery slope " my foot ! This certainly isn't going to lead to pedophilia, incest , bestiality etc being legalized anywhere . Much ado about nothing .

That's what they said about polygamy.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why was marriage limited to one man and one woman before?

Why couldn't women own property before they could?

It's not the question and it's not a real response to my answer on the actual point. If you'd like to respond I'm all ears, but I'm not interested in rabbit holes or distractions.

 

[glassjester]

Why couldn't women own property before they could?

It's not the question and it's not a real response to my answer on the actual point. If you'd like to respond I'm all ears, but I'm not interested in rabbit holes or distractions.

The purpose of marriage is to create a stable environment for procreation and raising children. As soon as we deviate from that purpose, we open the door to any and all perversions - and eventually the complete de-regulation of marriage.

#lovewins

 

[Town Heretic]

The purpose of marriage is to create a stable environment for procreation and raising children.

No, that's one purpose. It can't be advanced logically as the singular or even necessary purpose.

Why? In our society the infertile can marry. Those too old to produce can marry. Those neither old nor infertile who simply have no interest in children can marry. Marriage promotes stability and happiness for those entering into it and that's in the interest of the social order too.

Now if you marry and do produce children the state appreciates the effort and has set aside tax breaks to help you further your aim. But it doesn't require it or even inquire about it when you get your license.

As soon as we deviate from that purpose, we open the door to any and all perversions - and eventually the complete de-regulation of marriage.

I disagree, in part because it's not objectively true, as noted above and in part because the notion of opening a door to perversions runs into my rebuttal a couple of posts ago. You still haven't answered it. The slope is correlative, not causal. It's an illusion, legally speaking.

#reason wins

 

[glassjester]

No, that's one purpose. It can't be advanced logically as the singular or even necessary purpose.

Why? In our society the infertile can marry. Those too old to produce can marry. Those neither old nor infertile who simply have no interest in children can marry. Marriage promotes stability and happiness for those entering into it and that's in the interest of the social order too.

Now if you marry and do produce children the state appreciates the effort and has set aside tax breaks to help you further your aim. But it doesn't require it or even inquire about it when you get your license.

By defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman, the state is fostering the establishment of stable environments for procreation and raising of children. That's just a fact.

By abandoning that definition of marriage, the state undermines the establishment of stable environments for procreation and raising of children. And for the record, I don't believe homosexual marriage was the first step in the attack on marriage and family in this country. No-fault divorce, contraception, and abortion have done a good job of breaking down the American family. Homosexual marriage is just one more blow against it.

I disagree, in part because it's not objectively true, as noted above and in part because the notion of opening a door to perversions runs into my rebuttal a couple of posts ago. You still haven't answered it. The slope is correlative, not causal. It's an illusion, legally speaking.

#reason wins

Justice Roberts addressed this in his dissenting opinion from Obergefell v. Hodges:

If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise ‘suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,’ … , why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry ‘serves to disrespect and subordinate’ gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same ‘imposition of this disability,’ … , serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

The arguments used to justify homosexual marriage can and will be used to justify polygamous marriages, too. Give it a few years. But by then you may be in favor of polygamy anyway. If you aren't already. Are you?

 

[Town Heretic]

By defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman, the state is fostering the establishment of stable environments for procreation and raising of children. That's just a fact.

That underscores my point that the purpose of the marriage (so far as the state is concerned) isn't procreation then, because the state didn't do it. Didn't try to do it until fairly late in the game. Pile that onto my earlier note that we allow the infertile, aged, and simply unwilling to marry and that no marriage license asks for anyone's ability to procreate or even intent to do so and so far as I'm aware never did.

By abandoning that definition of marriage

The state didn't abandon it. It didn't have it for most of our history.

Here are some states that made the attempt by law or change to their constitutions to mandate the gender:

Arkansas (2004, 1997), Georgia (2004, 1996), Kentucky (2004, 1998), Louisiana (2004, 1999), Michigan (2004, 1996), Mississippi (2004, 1997), Missouri (2004, 1996), Nebraska (2000), North Dakota (2004, 1997), Ohio (2004, 2004), South Dakota (2006, 1996), Tennessee (2006, 1996), Texas (2005, 1997)

By Court decision:

Alabama* (Feb. 9, 2015), Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014), Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014), California (June 28, 2013), Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Florida (Jan. 6, 2015), Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014), Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Montana (Nov. 19, 2014), Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013), North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014), Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014), Oregon (May 19, 2014), Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014), South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014), Utah (Oct. 6, 2014), Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014), West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014), Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014), Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014).

the state undermines the establishment of stable environments for procreation and raising of children.

How? Is it your contention that people will stop having stable marriages because gays are involved in separate but equal unions? Have fewer children or do a poorer job of it? Where's that causality established?

And for the record, I don't believe homosexual marriage was the first step in the attack on marriage and family in this country. No-fault divorce, contraception, and abortion have done a good job of breaking down the American family. Homosexual marriage is just one more blow against it.

And glass, you're completely entitled to your beliefs on the point. I'm not trying to talk you out of a single one of them or attempting to disparage your holding them. I don't agree with you, but I understand your thinking.

I don't feel attacked and I've been married for a pretty good while now. I didn't feel homosexuals entering into the union impacted my own any more than my neighbor getting a no fault divorce would. Good marriages weather storms if both people are committed and understand what they're getting into. For those who are too easy with either end, the best gift they can give their spouse is freedom and the wisdom of making a deliberate and sober choice, hearts and flowers notwithstanding. I was engaged for nearly five years. I didn't have a clue about what marriage would shift around, but I knew who my beloved was and that she'd work with me to meet the challenges. And that's just what we've done, highs and lows.

The arguments used to justify homosexual marriage can and will be used to justify polygamous marriages, too.

I don't think you need to justify the exercise of a right. You should, however, have to justify the prohibition of it and that justification can't be a particular religious perspective.

Give it a few years. But by then you may be in favor of polygamy anyway. If you aren't already. Are you?

Polygammy? No. And I think you can advance a fairly compelling case against it from a purely secular and state interest foundation. Here's a link to a Politico article from a couple of years ago that does an interesting job on Polygamy. It was written by a homosexual to address the slipper slope approach (and mentions Robert's concern as well).

This slice of the article then:

Here’s a 2012 study, for example, that discovered “significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures.” According to the research, “monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygamy is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.”​

 

[glassjester]

That underscores my point that the purpose of the marriage (so far as the state is concerned) isn't procreation then, because the state didn't do it. Didn't try to do it until fairly late in the game. Pile that onto my earlier note that we allow the infertile, aged, and simply unwilling to marry and that no marriage license asks for anyone's ability to procreate or even intent to do so and so far as I'm aware never did.


The state didn't abandon it. It didn't have it for most of our history.




Here are some states that made the attempt by law or change to their constitutions to mandate the gender:

Arkansas (2004, 1997), Georgia (2004, 1996), Kentucky (2004, 1998), Louisiana (2004, 1999), Michigan (2004, 1996), Mississippi (2004, 1997), Missouri (2004, 1996), Nebraska (2000), North Dakota (2004, 1997), Ohio (2004, 2004), South Dakota (2006, 1996), Tennessee (2006, 1996), Texas (2005, 1997)

By Court decision:

Alabama* (Feb. 9, 2015), Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014), Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014), California (June 28, 2013), Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Florida (Jan. 6, 2015), Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014), Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Montana (Nov. 19, 2014), Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013), North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014), Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014), Oregon (May 19, 2014), Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014), South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014), Utah (Oct. 6, 2014), Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014), West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014), Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014), Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014).

Then there should be lots of examples of same-sex marriages, throughout. Are there?

How? Is it your contention that people will stop having stable marriages because gays are involved in separate but equal unions? Have fewer children or do a poorer job of it? Where's that causality established?


And glass, you're completely entitled to your beliefs on the point. I'm not trying to talk you out of a single one of them or attempting to disparage your holding them. I don't agree with you, but I understand your thinking.

I don't feel attacked and I've been married for a pretty good while now. I didn't feel homosexuals entering into the union impacted my own any more than my neighbor getting a no fault divorce would. Good marriages weather storms if both people are committed and understand what they're getting into. For those who are too easy with either end, the best gift they can give their spouse is freedom and the wisdom of making a deliberate and sober choice, hearts and flowers notwithstanding. I was engaged for nearly five years. I didn't have a clue about what marriage would shift around, but I knew who my beloved was and that she'd work with me to meet the challenges. And that's just what we've done, highs and lows.

I'm not saying it would affect your marriage or my marriage in particular - but it definitely can change the overall attitude toward marriage. And over time marriage will (continue to) erode, as an institution in this country. It's been under attack for decades, and look at the effects broken families have had on our society.

I don't think you need to justify the exercise of a right. You should, however, have to justify the prohibition of it and that justification can't be a particular religious perspective.


Polygammy? No. And I think you can advance a fairly compelling case against it from a purely secular and state interest foundation. Here's a link to a Politico article from a couple of years ago that does an interesting job on Polygamy. It was written by a homosexual to address the slipper slope approach (and mentions Robert's concern as well).

This slice of the article then:

Here’s a 2012 study, for example, that discovered “significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures.” According to the research, “monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygamy is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.”​

Don't opponents of homosexual activity make similar claims about its negative effect on society? The spreading of disease and such.

Yet your response, I'd wager, would be that those effects are not due to homosexual activity, per se. Could the same response be used to support polygamy? Kidnapping and rape are not necessary effects of polygamy, per se. Are they?

Of course, I'd still say (and perhaps you agree) that the apparent effects you listed of polygamy are reason enough to ban it. But then, shouldn't the apparent effects of homosexual activity be heeded, too?

 

[MrDante]

Cite my lie or apologize for your false accusation. Be a man. Own up to your words.

Who said this and where did they say it?

You'd say it right now, I bet.

Do you think homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy? Yes or no?

No.

[MENTION=18336]MrDante[/MENTION], why aren't you willing to say that same sex marriage will never lead to polygamy?

So rather than actually cite who said it and where you tried a con game to get me to say an approximation of it under flase pretense so you could pounce and say "gotch!" even though I didn't.

So what part of your little game here is not a lie? Or are you unwilling to own up to your words?

 

[Town Heretic]

Then there should be lots of examples of same-sex marriages, throughout.

No there shouldn't. Homosexuality was against the law in most states. And that doesn't impact my noting that you're mistaken about the state asserting gender in the contract, of the state redefining. Check out the years again.

I'm not saying it would affect your marriage or my marriage in particular - but it definitely can change the overall attitude toward marriage.

Why?

And over time marriage will (continue to) erode, as an institution in this country.

You haven't established your premise.

It's been under attack for decades, and look at the effects broken families have had on our society.

There's a difference between an institution losing steam and being under attack. For instance, when I was a kid societies like Key Club and the Shriners were in full bloom. Most of those sorts have seen dwindling memberships. No one is attacking them. When I arrived here TOL was entering a golden age of posting. Now it's fairly thin in terms of participation. FB and Twitter and a general trend among the new bloods has more to do with it than anything else. TOL isn't under attack. And so on.

Don't opponents of homosexual activity make similar claims about its negative effect on society? The spreading of disease and such.

Talking about a negative and demonstrating it are often different animals. I'm sure they do, but it's problematic for them on any number of levels. Most STDs are within and transmitted by heterosexuals. And we don't restrict by age or race, even though both of those are prime elements relating to the spread of STDs, etc.

Yet your response, I'd wager, would be that those effects are not due to homosexual activity, per se. Could the same response be used to support polygamy? Kidnapping and rape are not necessary effects of polygamy, per se. Are they?

It all depends on establishing causality.

Of course, I'd still say (and perhaps you agree) that the apparent effects you listed of polygamy are reason enough to ban it.

I reposted a few, left off another interesting advance relating to resource allocation and social instability. I'd be curious to see how the arguments flesh out.

But then, shouldn't the apparent effects of homosexual activity be heeded, too?

Which effects?

 

[ok doser]

Most STDs are within and transmitted by heterosexuals.

Gen 3:1

 

[Rusha]

I'm not saying it would affect your marriage or my marriage in particular - but it definitely can change the overall attitude toward marriage. And over time marriage will (continue to) erode, as an institution in this country. It's been under attack for decades, and look at the effects broken families have had on our society.

The sanctity of marriage eroded LONG ago without any help from homosexuals. The very fact that the POTUS is a divorced, multiple-married adulterer with a history of sexual assault doesn't shed a flattering light on marriage.

 

[Rusha]

The purpose of marriage is to create a stable environment for procreation and raising children.

Then why is procreation *not* a requirement for marriage?

 

[glassjester]

The sanctity of marriage eroded LONG ago without any help from homosexuals. The very fact that the POTUS is a divorced, multiple-married adulterer with a history of sexual assault doesn't shed a flattering light on marriage.

I agree. How can we go about restoring it?

 

[glassjester]

Then why is procreation *not* a requirement for marriage?

Typically, the only way procreating doesn't take place in a marriage is through contraception (which I am also against), or infertility. And infertility is a health issue - or even a disability. I'm not sure that the government could or should enforce a marriage ban based on a physical disability.

 

[ok doser]

I agree. How can we go about restoring it?

By allowing homos to marry too, and to encourage children to engage in anal sex :duh:

 

[Rusha]

I agree. How can we go about restoring it?

A good start would be to disallow multiple, married adulterers from holding the highest office. Perhaps instead of the right inserting themselves into the marriages of complete strangers, they can start the lesson in their own homes and lead by example.

 

[glassjester]

A good start would be to disallow multiple, married adulterers from holding the highest office. Perhaps instead of the right inserting themselves into the marriages of complete strangers, they can start the lesson in their own homes and lead by example.

I'd vote for that law. Heck, I'd vote for outlawing adultery outright.

 

[Rusha]

Typically, the only way procreating doesn't take place in a marriage is through contraception (which I am also against), or infertility. And infertility is a health issue - or even a disability. I'm not sure that the government could or should enforce a marriage ban based on a physical disability.

I understand that you are against contraception and agree that it's your right to not use it. Insofar as infertility being a health issue ... so what. It still exists and IF marriage was solely for the intent of procreation, those who cannot reproduce shouldn't be allowed to marry. Now that that has been established, how exactly will we know whether or not someone is capable of reproduction without mandating a medical exam prior to issuing a marriage license?

 

[Rusha]

I'd vote for that law. Heck, I'd vote for outlawing adultery outright.

There would certainly be a lot more unmarried people under such a law.