View Poll Results: Should churches be made to wed same sex couples?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Churches should have to wed same sex couples.

    3 4.41%
  • No. Churches should not have to wed same sex couples.

    64 94.12%
  • Other

    1 1.47%
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 86

Thread: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

  1. #61
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,535

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    It IS interesting the lengths that some people are going to here in order to come up with a rationale to keep polygamy illegal. (Or hey, polyandry, for that matter. Why assume?)
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #62
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    It IS interesting the lengths that some people are going to here in order to come up with a rationale to keep polygamy illegal. (Or hey, polyandry, for that matter. Why assume?)

    Not sure why that is so. Possibly there is a reluctance to admit that once you overturn the traditional institution of marriage, there is really no valid ground to stand on to deny polygamy, polyandry, or group marriages. Much the same arguments used to validate SSM can be used to validate GM (Group Marriage).

    Heinlein postulated a number of formulae for group or line marriage systems in novels he wrote in the 60's and 70's. This "it's too complicated" business is nonsense; if group marriage is too complicated for legalization, then so are business partnerships and corporations.


    Frankly, I think to support SSM (which has no historical basis as it was never anything other than a rare exception to the usual male-female rule) while denying GM (which at least one form, polygamy, has extensive historical basis), is a bit hypocritical.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #63
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,535

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Not sure why that is so. Possibly there is a reluctance to admit that once you overturn the traditional institution of marriage, there is really no valid ground to stand on to deny polygamy, polyandry, or group marriages. Much the same arguments used to validate SSM can be used to validate GM (Group Marriage).

    Heinlein postulated a number of formulae for group or line marriage systems in novels he wrote in the 60's and 70's. This "it's too complicated" business is nonsense; if group marriage is too complicated for legalization, then so are business partnerships and corporations.


    Frankly, I think to support SSM (which has no historical basis as it was never anything other than a rare exception to the usual male-female rule) while denying GM (which at least one form, polygamy, has extensive historical basis), is a bit hypocritical.
    Certainly it's hypocritical, and I think that's right -- much as legalized polygamy/andry was derided as a "slippery slope" argument before all this really got going, as more and more SSM victories are won, people are starting to realize that yes, indeed, the basis on which they're being decided DOES take away any valid arguments against marriages of more than two -- and now they're scrambling to justify keeping it illegal.

    Which leads me to wonder -- why? What do they have against it? If consenting adults want to make those kinds of relationship commitments, why do they want to stand in the way?

    My suspicion is that it's the "ewww" factor and not a small amount of religious bigotry. Or both.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #64
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Because group marriages, in any form, come with many more complications than a legal union of two people. At the very least, it would require a different set of rules and a different form in order to ensure that everyone within the partnership is protected against abuse from one or more within the group and to ensure that legal issues are covered prior to them becoming an issue.

    Some people, like myself, are open to the idea of group marriage. However, it is not nearly the same thing as SSM. SSM involves merely naming a person of the same sex rather than the opposite sex as being a person's closest living relative. Without protections in place to ensure that a person is not able to marry multiple people without the knowledge of any previous spouse, then there is a high potential for abuse and/or fraud, not to mention huge legal issues if the person is incapacitated or dies. These are things that should be worked out prior to opening up marriages to groups.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #65
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,535

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Because group marriages, in any form, come with many more complications than a legal union of two people. At the very least, it would require a different set of rules and a different form in order to ensure that everyone within the partnership is protected against abuse from one or more within the group and to ensure that legal issues are covered prior to them becoming an issue.
    What do you mean, "protected from abuse"?

    Some people, like myself, are open to the idea of group marriage. However, it is not nearly the same thing as SSM. SSM involves merely naming a person of the same sex rather than the opposite sex as being a person's closest living relative. Without protections in place to ensure that a person is not able to marry multiple people without the knowledge of any previous spouse, then there is a high potential for abuse and/or fraud, not to mention huge legal issues if the person is incapacitated or dies. These are things that should be worked out prior to opening up marriages to groups.
    That's a logistics matter which doesn't stand up to the fundamental rights at issue. Certainly not under the arguments that these cases are winning on. There's no cost/benefit analysis being done, nor provisions for easing into anything. If it's a fundamental right, it's a fundamental right.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #66
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    What do you mean, "protected from abuse"?
    There are certainly some groups, FLDS comes to mind, who would use such a thing to be able to marry more young girls. Since it only takes a parent's permission in many states for someone under the age of 18 to get married, it certainly sets someone up to be abused.

    It could also lead to someone being taken advantage of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    That's a logistics matter which doesn't stand up to the fundamental rights at issue. Certainly not under the arguments that these cases are winning on. There's no cost/benefit analysis being done, nor provisions for easing into anything. If it's a fundamental right, it's a fundamental right.
    It is a matter that needs to be covered prior to opening up such an idea. One of the more important things that the marriage contract does is establish a person who is considered to have the final say in medical and/or legal matters for that other person. Which spouse would have that say in a group marriage? What if a person wanted one spouse to make a decision on life support, while another decides on what happens to the body after death?

    There is also the question on whether it would be an actual group marriage thing or a person is able to have multiple marriage contracts. The group marriage thing would definitely work better than just making it so that a person can have multiple marriage contracts. Multiple marriage contracts would easily open it up so that the spouses might not be aware of each other. This could have major complications. In a group marriage, everyone would essentially be consenting to actually marry everyone else. This way everyone would definitely know who all was considered a spouse of their spouse.

    Along with these though, to just look at SSM as a equal rights issue would be wrong. We must look at why the marriage contract/license exists and comes with what it does. What benefits does marriages provide society? What benefits are provided to citizens who marry? These are important aspects of marriage. All the main benefits of marriage to both society and individuals easily come from and will go to same sex couples just as they do opposite sex couples. Raising children in loving households (hopefully) should the couple choose to have children, stability, someone to take responsibility for debts and/or medical/final decisions of a person all are benefits to society. And marriages benefit individuals by making them a legal member of another person's family. In fact, a marriage makes a spouse another person's closest legal relative. This ensures (99% of the time anyway) that important decisions are left up to the spouse. It also ensures that the spouse is entitled to the other person's possessions without a will (obviously a will that doesn't leave everything to a spouse would trump this). There are many other benefits/rights that individuals gain from being married.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #67
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,535

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    There are certainly some groups, FLDS comes to mind, who would use such a thing to be able to marry more young girls. Since it only takes a parent's permission in many states for someone under the age of 18 to get married, it certainly sets someone up to be abused.

    It could also lead to someone being taken advantage of.
    I'm only referring to consenting adults.



    It is a matter that needs to be covered prior to opening up such an idea. One of the more important things that the marriage contract does is establish a person who is considered to have the final say in medical and/or legal matters for that other person. Which spouse would have that say in a group marriage? What if a person wanted one spouse to make a decision on life support, while another decides on what happens to the body after death?

    There is also the question on whether it would be an actual group marriage thing or a person is able to have multiple marriage contracts. The group marriage thing would definitely work better than just making it so that a person can have multiple marriage contracts. Multiple marriage contracts would easily open it up so that the spouses might not be aware of each other. This could have major complications. In a group marriage, everyone would essentially be consenting to actually marry everyone else. This way everyone would definitely know who all was considered a spouse of their spouse.

    Along with these though, to just look at SSM as a equal rights issue would be wrong. We must look at why the marriage contract/license exists and comes with what it does. What benefits does marriages provide society? What benefits are provided to citizens who marry? These are important aspects of marriage. All the main benefits of marriage to both society and individuals easily come from and will go to same sex couples just as they do opposite sex couples. Raising children in loving households (hopefully) should the couple choose to have children, stability, someone to take responsibility for debts and/or medical/final decisions of a person all are benefits to society. And marriages benefit individuals by making them a legal member of another person's family. In fact, a marriage makes a spouse another person's closest legal relative. This ensures (99% of the time anyway) that important decisions are left up to the spouse. It also ensures that the spouse is entitled to the other person's possessions without a will (obviously a will that doesn't leave everything to a spouse would trump this). There are many other benefits/rights that individuals gain from being married.
    You're talking about best practices, but that doesn't matter anymore. The reality is what is and is increasingly shaping up to be. This is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the way the law is shaping up and the precedents which are being established. And those precedents are going to make it pretty tough to argue against legalized marriages of more than one.

    These arguments would still matter if the issue were being decided as it should be, through societal consensus and legislation. But that's not how it's going down, and a lot of people who are fine with how it's going down are starting to realize that yes indeed, the polygamy/andry issue is barreling down the pike.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 11-13-10 at 02:13 AM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #68
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,361

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    I thought this was about SSM?

    Anyway, marriage isn't a right. But equal protection under the law is. Denying SSM is a violation of the 14th amendment. If you can show that polygamy is in violation then you'll have legal standing.

  9. #69
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,535

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    I thought this was about SSM?

    Anyway, marriage isn't a right. But equal protection under the law is. Denying SSM is a violation of the 14th amendment. If you can show that polygamy is in violation then you'll have legal standing.
    Under every prevailing argument which says denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, so too is denying marriages of more than two. I'm not advocating for or against it, so I don't have a stake in it (though I have no problem with it). But that's the way it's going down.

    But I don't know why any advocate of SSM should be against it.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #70
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,361

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Under every prevailing argument which says denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, so too is denying marriages of more than two. I'm not advocating for or against it, so I don't have a stake in it (though I have no problem with it). But that's the way it's going down.

    But I don't know why any advocate of SSM should be against it.
    Not really. Denying SSM is a violation of the 14th based on gender, you can't deny someone the right to enter a contract based on their gender without a state interest, and being able to show that by denying it, it protects that state interest. If you can show that with polygamy, I'm all ears.

    Personally, I really don't care, and to be honest, polygamist aren't really into marriage, so I don't think it would be accepted by the polygamist community all too well. Plus it would be a legal nightmare, while SSM, would just inherit all the rules of opposite sex marriage.
    The only problem I have is that when people try to marry(no pun intended) the two concepts when they are really very different things.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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