Damn it all, I had a post and the computer ate it. I'll try again, but some of the good stuff is just gone.
out: Also some of what I had said has been said by others now so I won't bother to repeat it.
I'm also going to go backwards this time.
It violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Equal protection of what? I can argue that everyone is equally protected in their right of marrying a member of the opposite gender. Or that everyone is protected in their right to marry a member of their same race (going back a few years). It's depending on how you're defining the right as to whether it's protected or not. Personally I say that the right is to be able to marry ANYONE who is legally an adult, and is able to give consent, regardless of anything. Others, like Objective J if I am remembering and reading correctly, argue that the right to marry any race/skin color is seperate from a right to marry any gender. Therefore allowing SSM is not granting equal rights but estabishing a new right.
Though there are logical arguments against people of very close relation getting it on given the understanding of science and genetics.
Those arguments are not applied consistantly though, especially in the light of the SSM arguments. What does our undersatnding of the genetic interaction of consangous(sp) couples have to do with couples where one or both are sterile or with couples who are the same gender? Your argument now fails.
And there's arguments against polygamy given that almost every instance of polygamous society in the modern world has been one built on oppression, sexism, subjugation, and exile. Also Utah wasn't allowed into the Republic till it denounced polygamy; so there's precedent for that one.
Only the ones that make the news. If there is no conflict then why should they report on it? However, let's now look at those marriages as shown on Sister Wives. Do those marriages look like they are built on oppression? Subjugation? Exile? Not unless you have definitions of these things that are way out there. Sexism? Well that one is open to a little more subjectiveness than the others, but is nowhere near what you see out of the religious whackos in Arizonia. I have no doubt that we could find families to be on Brother Husbands, but somehow I don't think the ratings would be enough to maintain it even through one season. Now there's sexism for you.
Polygamy actually has a much more straight-forward counter-argument: it often involves force. It should be illegal in any democracy for the same reason rape and slavery are.
Polyamory is polygamy where the partners are equal.
Do NOT even try this. You cannot take the example of a small group of people who are using the practice of polygamy, specifically polygyny, as an excuse to engage in reprehensible behavior as an indicator of the practice in and of itself. By that basis I can argue that marriage is equally bad based upon domestic violence.
Polyamory is the practice of holding multiple relationships, some or all of which may or may not be marriage also. Polygamy is the practice of holding multiple
marriages. Excluding any play partners/swinging partners I may have I could have a polygamous marriage to two wives and another husband and also have polyamorous relationships with yet another woman and another man. The marriage, which is obviously only social/religious in nature, is the key difference.
There are many polygamous marriages among the polyamorous community. Granted some will only call it a polyamorous marriage, but they are still, by definition, polygamous. And personally find it offensive that you would use such a small group to paint the rest of us by. That is no better than calling all Muslims terrorist based on Al Qaeda.
However, I oppose the reason for this compromise. No one in their right mind compromises with the losing party, they take their win and everything they can with it.
Bad reasoning. Of course it can be better to compromise with the losing party:
"Hey we're winning, but they are a compromise over the land."
"No one in their right mind compromises with the losing party! We will take our win and everything we can with it."
Later
"Well we won. There is nothing left here that is usable and the land is ruined for decades. But we won!"
Sometimes in trying to win it all you can destroy the very thing you are trying to win. Now is that what will/would happen in this case? Irrelavant to my point that you are making a bad argument in applying an absolute to a situational argument
Technically I could fly to whever you live now and probably marry you without any sort of romantic relationship. When SSM is allowed I could technically marry my best friend even though we don't have a non-romantic relationship.
Did you mean to write it this way? The way I read it I would think that you meant either "...even though we have a non-romantic relationship." or "...even though we don't have a romantic relationship." Otherwise I don't see the point of the word "technically".
The state did not always recognize marriage as an institution. The reason they started to was in order to discriminate against people. And they're still doing it now.
Incorrect. Governments throughout history, even the US's, have long since recognized marriages as an institution. They have not always tried to regulate it and issue licenses for it, but other laws were certainly in place since the early history of the US. So it has always been recognized.
It's very similar to how the Church reconized marriage, but didn't try to regulate it until the 13th century under Pope Innocent III. Reconizing something and trying to control or place stricter controls on it are two seperate things.
The unrealistic rarely do.
Nor do they provide answers when asked.
Which is why SSM is in court. It's not legitimate to bar same sex and earlier, interracial couples from marriage. I have a problem with polygamous relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.
I have a problem with interacial relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.
I have a problem with same sex relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.
Why is your argument any more valid for polygamous relationships that it is for interracial or same sex? Now if you want to argue that is logistically detremental to just up and eliminate the ban against outright it at this time, I can agree with you. A lot more would need to be done and figured out on a logistic legal basis before we could allow polygamy again. But your argument just falls flat.
There is no legal or social precedent to gut the whole idea of marriage merely to prevent gays from having access to it. Marriage has always been a legal status. Laws about property, inheritance, and sex have been affected my legal marital status for thousands of years. If someone wants to have a relationship with all of those legal elements, without marriage, they're welcome to fill out the paperwork. You can have a relationship and call yourself whatever you want. Marriage is a legal status, and destroying that status over some people's desire to keep the label for themselves is absurd.
Not sure here. Are you arguing that marriage is only a legal status?
No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.
Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"
The state at best is only paying lip service to the concept of a stable family life and stable relationship. In a world of 55 hour marriages, can we really say that the state actually cares?
As to the "scorched earth" policy, the "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!" stance would actually be the proponents of SSM and the opponents would be more like "If I can't have it as I define it, NO ONE CAN!"
And the stuff posted after I started my responses:
Interesting. Never been in the military? Separate standards for gender. Have you ever seen the entrance requirements for your local fire personnel - there are two separate but equal standards, one for men, one for women. Rinse and repeat for police.
Hell we can go as simple as restrooms for "seperate but equal". Although given some of the nice stuff I've seen in women's restrooms, they seem a little more equal than men.
However, I will say that if the wording and the weight of the two laws were exact except for one being titled "marriage" and the other being titled "civil union" then we don't have "seperate but equal". We have a difference of label.