 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
This entire issue boils down to drawing lines. There is a line now defining mariage between a man and a woman.
There are other lines regardng age, number of spouses allowed, mental capacity etc. that most people agree should be drawn at some point
In Utah some years ago the US government enforced the prohibition against multiple wives. That was a reasonable line as far as most were concerned. . |
You may be unaware of this but the Christian holy book has many instances of men with many wives, concubines et cetera.
I believe King Solomon is credited with 700 wives:
Solomon's wives came from many places: Egypt, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Sidonia, Hittite, etc. Foreign wives came from nations with whom God commanded Israel not to associate. God warned that these people would turn Israel to their gods [Exodus 34:12-16]. Solomon had seven hundred wives (princesses) and a thousand concubines (wives of lower status) [1 Kings 11:3]. In his old age his wives turned his heart to the gods [1 Kings 11:4-8].
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.or...ll/faithin7.htm
It is felt that it was the influence of the pagan Roman Empire (where one wife and divorce were the norm) which caused Christianity to introduce the limit: one husband/one wife into its faith.
Of course not all reasonable people are American or Christian:
"Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones. In 1994, Theodore C. Bergstrom noted in his paper "On the Economics of Polygyny" [1]
(http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Evolution/polygyny3.pdf) (U. Mich. Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory, Working Paper Series 94-11)
that
"Although overt polygamy is rare in our own society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the world. Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyga...ygamy_worldwide
Why, I think even one of America's staunch allies allows multiple wives, not only in law, but in their religion.
Of course, laws relating to age at which marriage is allowed, number of wives, incest have to do with issues of informed consent and health. If you think that incest presents no health problems in terms of inheritable disease, please say so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
In the case of polygamy or incest the state expressly denies the right to marry. Homosexuals are allowed to marry (thankfully), but are not afforded the same rights and protections under law as heterosexuals who marry. This is not about whether it is right to allow homosexuals to marry, but whether it is right for the state to discriminate against a couple based on their sexual orientation. |
In what jurisdictions are gays allowed to marry while at the same time not afforded the same rights and protections? I think it's kind of implicit that if a state is willing to allow you to marry (ie:recognize your marriage as a marriage), it is going to afford you the same rights as all other (straight) marriages. If it's anything else, then by definition, the state is NOT allowing gays to marry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I was arguing whether a "fundamental human right" exists as is often argued in support of your position, Aeson. And there is no "right to marry" except in some places. It is certainly not universally accepted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
isnt this horse dead yet? |
On Apolyton, this horse is immortal.
Kind of like Alexander's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
The US...
Massachusetts. DOMA.
The terms "allow" and "recognize" are not the same. |
The US isn't a jurisdiction in relation to marriage since the federal government isn't the one issuing marriage licenses. The DOMA causes problems in part because one jurisdiction (read: a state) isn't obligated to recognize a same sex marriage as such even though it is recognized by another jurisdiction (another state). I don't know of any states that, as a jurisdiction, internally allow gay marriages while at the same time not recognizing them. As I say, that's kind of an oxymoron.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
In Texas a sodomy statute was overturned. Se we are told that slope leads to gay marriage.
|
No we aren't, since the definition of sodomy referred to a criminalized physical act the punishment for which would also be applied to lesbians and heterosexuals. In fact in some states, sodomy included or was extended to include lesbianism. You do some odd things in the United States.
"The State of Texas in this case claims the right
to criminally punish any unmarried adult couple for
engaging in any form of consensual sexual intimacy that
the State happens to disapprove of.
It further claims that there's no constitutional
problem raised by a criminal statute that is directed not
just at conduct, but at a particular group of people, a
law that criminalizes forms of sexual intimacy only for
same-sex couples and not for anyone else in the State who has -- has the right to make a free choice to engage in the identical conduct.
Petitioners are two adults who were arrested in
a private home and criminally convicted simply because
they engaged in one of the forms of sexual intimacy that
is on the banned list in the State of Texas for same-sex
couples.
They bring two constitutional claims to the Court today. First, among the fundamental rights that are implicit in our concept of order of liberty, must be the right of all adult couples, whether same-sex or not, to be free from unwarranted State intrusion into their personal
decisions about their preferred forms of sexual
expression.
Second, there's no legitimate and rational
justification under the Equal Protection Clause for a law
that regulates forms of sexual intimacy that are permitted in the State only for same-sex couples, thereby creating a kind of a second class citizenship to that group of people."
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_...ipts/02-102.pdf
And as one Justice said:
"All right, so you said -- you said procreation, marriage and children, those are your three justifications. Now from what you recently said, I don't see what it has to do with marriage, since, in fact, marriage has nothing to do with the conduct that either this or other statutes do or don't forbid.
I don't see what it has to do with children, since, in fact, the gay people can certainly adopt children and they do. And I don't see what it has to do with procreation, because that's the same as the children.
All right. So -- so what is the justification for this statute, other than, you know, it's not what they
say on the other side, is this it simply,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell, the reason why I cannot tell. "
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
The US isn't a jurisdiction in relation to marriage since the federal government isn't the one issuing marriage licenses. |
Well, if that is the case then the gay marriage amendment won't have any effect, right? You've cleared that right up. The US has no jurisdiction in relation to marriage.  (I think you're wrong about this...)
People in Massachusetts are allowed to marry, homosexual or heterosexual. Homosexual couples are not afforded the same rights though, because of DOMA. Massachusetts marriages, as long as they are heterosexual, are protected by the US Constitution under article 9, and that marriage will be recognized by all US states. Because of DOMA though, homosexual couples married in Massachusetts do not have that protection even though they are US citizens as well.
While Massachusetts has the right to issue marriage liscences, they do so under the US jurisdiction. This will become abundantly clear if this amendment passes.
quote:
I don't know of any states that, as a jurisdiction, internally allow gay marriages while at the same time not recognizing them. As I say, that's kind of an oxymoron. |
"Recognize" and "allow" are seperate things. The US allows Massachusetts to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples. It does not recognize those marriages itself, and DOMA allows other states to not recognize them as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
Well, if that is the case then the gay marriage amendment won't have any effect, right? You've cleared that right up. The US has no jurisdiction in relation to marriage. (I think you're wrong about this...)
People in Massachusetts are allowed to marry, homosexual or heterosexual. Homosexual couples are not afforded the same rights though, because of DOMA. Massachusetts marriages, as long as they are heterosexual, are protected by the US Constitution under article 9, and that marriage will be recognized by all US states. Because of DOMA though, homosexual couples married in Massachusetts do not have that protection even though they are US citizens as well.
While Massachusetts has the right to issue marriage liscences, they do so under the US jurisdiction. This will become abundantly clear if this amendment passes.
"Recognize" and "allow" are seperate things. The US allows Massachusetts to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples. It does not recognize those marriages itself, and DOMA allows other states to not recognize them as well. |
Wha.....? That's exactly my point.
Let's go this way. Question for you: Does the state of Massachusettes, which allows gay marriage, recognize those marriages as such? Note, I'm not talking about the US Federal government, just the state of Massachusettes. Then, will the state of Texas, which does not recognize gay marriages, issue a marriage license to a gay couple?
That's the problem with the DOMA. First, it is the Federal government butting into what is normally a state level issue - marriage (you might want to ask MtG about that one). Second, it's explicitly giving states the ability to not recognize a marriage that is recognized in another state.
Bottom line: in the eyes of the state of Massachusettes, gay marriages are entitled to the same protections as straight marriages. The state of Massuchusettes is NOT saying "ok, you can have your licence, but we're not going to consider you actually married". Whatever the state of New York, or Texas, or Utah or the US Federal Government has to say about this does not change what the state of Massachusettes considers marriage.
As for Article 9 of the US Constitution, can you please point out where marriage is explicitly mentioned? Or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter? Because if you're considering it a "right", then we're back to Lincoln's original point - if marriage is a right, then how can we possibly disallow polygamy, incest, underage marriages, etc?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
I haven't heard of any jurisdiction that allows gay marriage that also allows polygamy. I know we certainly don't in Ontario.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
Note, I'm not talking about the US Federal government, just the state of Massachusettes. |
But I am talking about the US Federal government, and to refute my point you would need to as well. Refuting points which were not made is called a red herring. You asked for an example of a state which allows marriage, but doesn't recognize it, and I gave you one. Very simple.
The US government allows homosexual marriages in it's jurisdiction. The US government does not issue the marriage liscences itself. Massachusetts does. If you are still getting stuck on the words "allow" and "recognize", I suggest you look them up in a dictionary to see what they mean. They are not the same thing.
While your assertions that Massachusetts doesn't allow and disallow marriage are correct, they don't apply to anything I've said. Your statements on DOMA I agree with completely.
quote:
As for Article 9 of the US Constitution, can you please point out where marriage is explicitly mentioned? Or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter? Because if you're considering it a "right", then we're back to Lincoln's original point - if marriage is a right, then how can we possibly disallow polygamy, incest, underage marriages, etc? |
Article 9 is used to support that a marriage in one state is observed by other states. It isn't explicitly stated, but that is how it is applied to heterosexual marriage. The US Constitution protects heterosexual marriages in this manner. It doesn't protect homosexual marriages in the same manner.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
So this boogie-man of polygamous marriage might be just a figment of some people's imagination? |
Yes and no. My point is simply that if you start thinking of marriage as an absolute right, then you need to consider why you can regulate it at all. I am completely for allowing gay marriage in total equity with heterosexual marriage. I just think that the strength of the arguments for allowing it do not reside in any discussion of "marriage rights". Hell, I'm straight and I don't think that I have a "right" to get married. But I do think it makes sense to allow me to get married, just as I think it makes sense to allow gays to get married.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-06-2004 04:23
|
|