Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Originally Posted by Hicup

Other than the psychological aspects of your argument, I have already refuted your argument that states that polygamy is not completely unrelated to homosexuality, and even heterosexuality in terms of a possible legal interpretation that affords the same protections.


Tim-

Here is your comment:

Originally Posted by Hicup

You posted it from a post you made previously. I read it, and I refuted it right here in this very thread.

Tim-

You are claiming that "you read it and refuted it right here on this thread." I ask, again. Explain how you did this if I only posted it once, yesterday on a thread where you have no participated, here, less than an hour ago, or back on 4/4/09... which is where I first wrote the post. I see no refutations here of my comments... it would not be possible based on the timeframes.

Further, I am not arguing discrimination/equal protection... nor have I ever. I have made this pretty clear. I am arguing the differences between GM/SM and polygamy and why the government would sanction the former and not the latter. I have requested you to demonstrate the benefits of plural marriage and how they outweigh the negatives. So, no, you have not refuted my argument in the least. You have attempted to refute an argument that you WANT me to have made. You also have not touched my post, since it was just posted at a little after 2 AM EST.

So, the questions are:

1) How could you "refute" a post you had not seen or had not addressed?
2) How could you "refute" a position that I do not have?
3) Can you demonstrate the benefits of polygamy and how the outweigh the negatives?

Originally Posted by Hicup

No fair. I talk to those that reflect how they speak to me... Plain and simple!

Tim-

I only respond to people in how they address me. You get what you give.

CC -

You are claiming that "you read it and refuted it right here on this thread." I ask, again. Explain how you did this if I only posted it once, yesterday on a thread where you have no participated

It is true I did not read the thread you mention. But it doesn't matter. I read your post. Know how? Because you quoted it in this thread. I did not intend to suggest that I read it, "when" you posted it, only that I read it.

less than an hour ago, or back on 4/4/09... which is where I first wrote the post. I see no refutations here of my comments... it would not be possible based on the timeframes

Uh? It wouldn't be possible if you made the post since 4/4/09? You posted it to this thread less than an hour ago? I read it, and I have "already" refuted it in this very thread, "before" you posted it here, less than an hour ago..

I have requested you to demonstrate the benefits of plural marriage and how they outweigh the negatives

There are no negatives.. How's that for an answer? Now it is incumbent on you to show there are.. Show cause please..

So, no, you have not refuted my argument in the least

I have entirely. You may not agree, but you'd need to show me why my criticism of your logic is faulty in order to claim victory..

So, the questions are:

1) How could you "refute" a post you had not seen or had not addressed?

Easily. I saw your post, posted here, and I have "already" refuted it.

2) How could you "refute" a position that I do not have?

Not sure I understand?

3) Can you demonstrate the benefits of polygamy and how the outweigh the negatives?

Are you suggesting that this is a prerequisite to granting rights? If so, then I have answered this question already, here, in this thread. What are the negatives of polygamy in terms of law, What are they in terms of society, and furthermore, is the mere fact that the counting of negatives afford one class a right, over another?


Tim-

You might want to try holding yourself to a higher standard then.

Originally Posted by Hicup

No fair. I talk to those that reflect how they speak to me... Plain and simple!

Tim-

Originally Posted by Hicup

CC -

It is true I did not read the thread you mention. But it doesn't matter. I read your post. Know how? Because you quoted it in this thread. I did not intend to suggest that I read it, "when" you posted it, only that I read it.

OK.

Uh? It wouldn't be possible if you made the post since 4/4/09? You posted it to this thread less than an hour ago? I read it, and I have "already" refuted it in this very thread, "before" you posted it here, less than an hour ago.

You cannot refute something that you had not read yet. In accordance with this claim, please link to your "refutation".

There are no negatives.. How's that for an answer? Now it is incumbent on you to show there are.. Show cause please..

Already did in my post. It is now incumbent upon YOU to demonstrate that they are not negatives. Just saying, "no they are not" is not good enough.

I have entirely. You may not agree, but you'd need to show me why my criticism of your logic is faulty in order to claim victory.

No, you haven't at all. No linked "refutation" post, no discussion of how the negatives I posted are not negatives, and it goes on and on. You have, AGAIN, made no logical argument. All you've done is state that you made some "phantom" post and say "no, there are no negatives" without attempting to refute one point I made. This is an example of how you debate.

Easily. I saw your post, posted here, and I have "already" refuted it.

Link to this "phantom" post. And remember. I have posted what my position and my argument is. Going the discrimination route is NOT what I am addressing, so try to stay on point.

Not sure I understand?

I have not made a discrimination/equal rights argument. My position is based on reasons for the government to sanction and support marriage. You ONE comment towards me was based on a discrimination/equal rights position. That's not what I'm arguing.

Are you suggesting that this is a prerequisite to granting rights? If so, then I have answered this question already, here, in this thread. What are the negatives of polygamy in terms of law, What are they in terms of society, and furthermore, is the mere fact that the counting of negatives affords one class a right, over another?


Tim-

Well, firstly, I have clearly demonstrated how polygamy does not qualify as a "class of people"... at least not in the same way as a heterosexual or homosexual. Feel free to attempt to refute that. And secondly, I have also demonstrated the negatives to polygamy and how it negatively affects society... in ways that would preclude the government from sanctioning this kind of union. Again, you have not demonstrated how those negatives are NOT negatives. Be my guest to address any of the issues that I presented. You have not done so, as of yet.

Originally Posted by Hicup

Zyphlin .

California law discriminates against polygamist's in such a way that limits the fundamental right to marry more than one, who's affections, and emotional bond is uniquely singular. CA law requires that only two people, of independent standing, can substantively experience the love, and the emotional ties that impart the wanting of a marriage commitment, whereas, the polygamist is limited by CA law, in the wanting of marriage among as many persons the individual's they themselves loves, and maintains the emotional ties that impart the very same wanting of a marriage commitment. There is no legal precedent that concludes with a condition that the fundamental right that marriage carries, be of only two people, only that people have the fundamental right to marriage. It is CA law that places a limitation on the number of individuals that can experience the same kind of wanting, and love, and emotional ties that bind a marriage commitment.

Therefore, it is my opinion, that the State of CA discriminates against polygamist, and their practice, by limiting their practice altogether, rendering a polygamist as less worthy of the same protections of love, and marriage, by limiting the amount of people the polygamist can share those natural affections for the wanting of marriage.


Thoughts?


Tim-

My thought is that the legal structure of a polygamist/polyandrous marriage system is so foreign to the American legal tradition that introducing such arguments into the same-sex marriage discussion is nothing but a trojan horse intended to move the discussion away from the issues relevant to same-sex marriage.

My thought is also that while there is nothing intrinsically immoral or amoral about polygamy and polyandry, the construction of the necessary legal framework would be the work of decades.

My thought is, finally, that there's nothing unconstitutional about polygamy and polyandry.

Originally Posted by winston53660

IMHO it really does not serve any state interest to not have gay marriage recognized by the state other than politicians playing off populism.

It doesn't have to serve the state's interest.

In the United States, the whole founding idea was that the government be in the way the least amount possible.

It serves the state interest to be out of the way of individuals seeking the contractual merger known as marriage.

It makes no difference to the state, not in the least, what sexual equipment those marrying couples share between them.

One can argue that the state doesn't even have any business asking the question.

Originally Posted by Hicup

Other than the psychological aspects of your argument, I have already refuted your argument that states that polygamy is not completely unrelated to homosexuality, and even heterosexuality in terms of a possible legal interpretation that affords the same protections.


Tim-

Hmmm....two-person marriages involve: Merging of community property, and the care and raising of natural or adopted children, and the responsibilities and privileges each party has towards the other.

Hmmm....multi-person marriages involve: Merging of community property, and the care and raising of natural or adopted children, and the responsibilities and privileges each party has towards the others.

One single "s" is the difference in the creation of paired and plural marriages.

Here's the rub:

Divorcing a pair is straightforward, except even then it can require some fancy footwork by bloodsucking divorce lawyers.

How does one "divorce" a multi-party marriage? How many people are breaking off? If more than one person is breaking off, are they still married to each other while divorcing from the original plurality? What about the children? What shares did they bring to the community property, what shares did their participation in the community create and grow, what shares are theirs when they leave? How much support is the original community to provide to each of the individual divorcing parties, and how much to any splinter groups?

No, once the end of the plural marriage is considered, it's discovered to be a completely different animal than a simple paired marriage.

Not to mention that it's not germaine to the discussion of same-sex marriages, anyway.

CC -

You cannot refute something that you had not read yet. In accordance with this claim, please link to your "refutation".

My refutation is in a number of consequential post to this thread, not a single post, necessarily.

Already did in my post. It is now incumbent upon YOU to demonstrate that they are not negatives. Just saying, "no they are not" is not good enough

Let's put it this way. There are no legal negatives that justify a denial of equal protection. Unless of course you admit that a mere selection of negatives is enough to limit someone's fundamental right?

No, you haven't at all. No linked "refutation" post, no discussion of how the negatives I posted are not negatives, and it goes on and on. You have, AGAIN, made no logical argument. All you've done is state that you made some "phantom" post and say "no, there are no negatives" without attempting to refute one point I made. This is an example of how you debate

Surely you can't hold me to this? I have no single post, but a series of progressive posts that refute you. They "are" in this thread. I suggest you start on page 113 or there about.

Link to this "phantom" post. And remember. I have posted what my position and my argument is. Going the discrimination route is NOT what I am addressing, so try to stay on point

I know.. You're going the "negatives" route. It's a dangerous route for you, since it can be shown quite convincingly that homosexual marriages are "more" negative than heterosexual ones. Is this the basis of your criteria? Or do you want to adjust your viewpoint? I'll give you the benefit of doubt here.

I have not made a discrimination/equal rights argument. My position is based on reasons for the government to sanction and support marriage. You ONE comment towards me was based on a discrimination/equal rights position. That's not what I'm arguing

But government doesn't sanction, it legislates. Therefore you're argument should be based on this.

Well, firstly, I have clearly demonstrated how polygamy does not qualify as a "class of people"...

And I have demonstrated that they are.. So now what?

at least not in the same way as a heterosexual or homosexual

And I have demonstrated that they are... So now what?

And secondly, I have also demonstrated the negatives to polygamy and how it negatively affects society... in ways that would preclude the government from sanctioning this kind of union. Again, you have not demonstrated how those negatives are NOT negatives.

So you want me to prove how something that is negative, is not a negative? It not need be done, ever, especially in this thread. You seem to not grasp the flow of this thread? We're discussing a completely different view. You "negative" theory would, without impunity, negate homosexuality as equal to the standing of heterosexuality. That you don't see that is very telling as to your comprehension of the topic at hand..


Tim-

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

My thought is that the legal structure of a polygamist/polyandrous marriage system is so foreign to the American legal tradition that introducing such arguments into the same-sex marriage discussion is nothing but a trojan horse intended to move the discussion away from the issues relevant to same-sex marriage.

My thought is also that while there is nothing intrinsically immoral or amoral about polygamy and polyandry, the construction of the necessary legal framework would be the work of decades.

My thought is, finally, that there's nothing unconstitutional about polygamy and polyandry.

Thank you! I agree!

Tim-