If gay marriage is legalized...

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:14 pm

... should the Western nations that recognize it also recognize polygamy from the Middle Eastern countries?

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:15 pm

Hellsangel wrote:... should the Western nations that recognize it also recognize polygamy from the Middle Eastern countries?

Non sequitur.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:18 pm

France just rejected gay marriage. They also crack down on polygamy among their immigrants.

Both pertain to marriage rights.

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:22 pm

Hellsangel wrote:France just rejected gay marriage. They also crack down on polygamy among their immigrants.

Both pertain to marriage rights.

France also glorifies adultery. So the question ought to be, "if we reject gay marriage, will we will start cheating on our spouses?"

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:23 pm

charvaka wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:France just rejected gay marriage. They also crack down on polygamy among their immigrants.

Both pertain to marriage rights.
France also glorifies adultery. So the question ought to be, "if we reject gay marriage, will we will start cheating on our spouses?"

I don't think France really glorifies adultery...

Maybe they are kinder on it than the US.

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:28 pm

That's a difference of degree. My point stands... your original comment is a classic non sequitur. The one does not follow from the other, even if both those things occur in another country.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:34 pm

I know you are very pro gay marriage. But that is not the only restriction in current marriage laws. So what/who decides what is right and what is not?

by Nila Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:38 pm

Hellsangel wrote:... should the Western nations that recognize it also recognize polygamy from the Middle Eastern countries?

Yes and yes they should also recognize polyandry as well. Who came up with the idea of Monogamy!?

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:42 pm

Hellsangel wrote:I know you are very pro gay marriage.

I am very pro equality.

Hellsangel wrote:So what/who decides what is right and what is not?

Society does. Inequality in marriage is something that western societies have been steadily chipping away at. What miscegenation laws were to the 1960s will be prop 8 to the 2010s.

by CroMagnon Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:36 pm

There is no reason why gay marriage should not be legalized and there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.

For that matter, marijuana should be legal and so should be euthanasia and suicide.

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:50 pm

CroMagnon wrote:there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.

Polygamy is unequal. If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

by Guest Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:52 pm

charvaka wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.
Polygamy is unequal. If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

again..its high time we came up with sarcastic fonts Razz

i dont think cro was serious.

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:55 pm

I think he was in earnest.

by CroMagnon Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:20 pm

charvaka wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.
Polygamy is unequal. If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

I thought polygamy was a super-set of polyandry and covered both genders. If not, yes, polyandry should also be allowed. Government has no business in personal affairs of consenting adults.

by Guest Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:33 pm

CroMagnon wrote:
charvaka wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.
Polygamy is unequal. If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

I thought polygamy was a super-set of polyandry and covered both genders. If not, yes, polyandry should also be allowed. Government has no business in personal affairs of consenting adults.

govt has every business keeping order in the society. if a personal choice is potentially causing social disorder, the govt will interfere.

by CroMagnon Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:45 pm

seven wrote:govt has every business keeping order in the society. if a personal choice is potentially causing social disorder, the govt will interfere.

This is US, not some backward Islamic country, where legalizing gay marriages will cause civil unrest. At best, some people will get offended.

Government's job is to protect individual rights, not to trample them. If we call elected representatives leaders, then they should behave like one. Leaders do not follow people's opinions - they form them.

by Mosquito Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:49 pm

seven wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:
charvaka wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.
Polygamy is unequal. If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

I thought polygamy was a super-set of polyandry and covered both genders. If not, yes, polyandry should also be allowed. Government has no business in personal affairs of consenting adults.

govt has every business keeping order in the society. if a personal choice is potentially causing social disorder, the govt will interfere.

How is Gay marriage causing social disorder?

by Mosquito Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:49 pm

seven wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:
charvaka wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.
Polygamy is unequal. If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

I thought polygamy was a super-set of polyandry and covered both genders. If not, yes, polyandry should also be allowed. Government has no business in personal affairs of consenting adults.

govt has every business keeping order in the society. if a personal choice is potentially causing social disorder, the govt will interfere.

How is Gay marriage causing social disorder?

by Guest Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:55 pm

PseudoIntellectual wrote:
seven wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:
charvaka wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.
Polygamy is unequal. If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

I thought polygamy was a super-set of polyandry and covered both genders. If not, yes, polyandry should also be allowed. Government has no business in personal affairs of consenting adults.

govt has every business keeping order in the society. if a personal choice is potentially causing social disorder, the govt will interfere.

How is Gay marriage causing social disorder?

i said IF and when a personal choice causes damage to the society...so we have to apply the rule to everybody- say everybody wanted to marry same sex people then we will run out of babies after 100s of years or longer and govt will then have to leagalize sex outside marriage and all the values will go down the dash.

by Guest Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:23 pm

seven wrote:
i said IF and when a personal choice causes damage to the society...so we have to apply the rule to everybody- say everybody wanted to marry same sex people then we will run out of babies after 100s of years or longer and govt will then have to leagalize sex outside marriage and all the values will go down the dash.

Eh?

by Mosquito Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:37 pm

seven wrote:

i said IF and when a personal choice causes damage to the society...so we have to apply the rule to everybody- say everybody wanted to marry same sex people then we will run out of babies after 100s of years or longer and govt will then have to leagalize sex outside marriage and all the values will go down the dash.

Sex outside marriage isnt illegal in other words it is already legal.

by CroMagnon Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:54 pm

Hellsangel wrote:So what/who decides what is right and what is not?

Government's job is to protect the rights of individuals - not to decide on what is right and what is wrong. I can/should be able do all the bad things I want so long as it doesn't affect a non-consenting person.

Usually socials pressure ensure that barring a small fraction of people most people behave according to socially acceptable norms of the region. e.g. even though adultery is not illegal, most people either don't indulge in it or keep such extra-marital affairs discreet because of social repercussions.

by Guest Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:13 pm

i forgot wat i was thinking when i wrote that.

by Nila Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:18 pm

seven wrote:i forgot wat i was thinking when i wrote that.

Yes...I was having a wild imagination that ...incase if I get divorced, may be I will find a woman(women) for myself.

Sorry to say that you are not my type Razz

Also...Impy is too agressive for me and PI is too technical for me, but I can be a side kick to help her with apps (which is not music based)...gosh! Again - Upilli is the woman ...LOLu.

Well, have a good day and tata. I know whenever I reply to you...I am in a hurry, gotta pick up kids and workout and packing/purchasing and have to buy some dinner.

by Guest Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:28 pm

Sasthi wrote:
seven wrote:i forgot wat i was thinking when i wrote that.

Yes...I was having a wild imagination that ...incase if I get divorced, may be I will find a woman(women) for myself.

Sorry to say that you are not my type

Also...Impy is too agressive for me and PI is too technical for me, but I can be a side kick to help her with apps (which is not music based)...gosh! Again - Upilli is the woman ...LOLu.

Well, have a good day and tata. I know whenever I reply to you...I am in a hurry, gotta pick up kids and workout and packing/purchasing and have to buy some dinner.

ur post helped me understand wat some profile must feel like when he reads my posts. maha boring **yawns**
all i can say in response is I am glad i am not ur type TG!

by Guest Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:31 pm

i think i was talkin abt polygamy and polyandry. whn i think more i can imagine if 'everyone' understood the concept well then it might be a good thing. but thats not gona happen...and more people will get hurt. bad idea!

abt gay people marrying each other, i have no problem with that. i dont care.

by CroMagnon Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:42 pm

CroMagnon wrote:I thought polygamy was a super-set of polyandry and covered both genders.

Polygamy is in fact a super-set of polyandry.

Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "often married")[1] is a marriage which includes more than two partners.[1] When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny, and there is no marriage bond between the wives; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry, and there is no marriage bond between the husbands.

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:55 pm

seven wrote:say everybody wanted to marry same sex people then we will run out of babies after 100s of years

You are assuming that all of us would rather marry people of same sex, and the only thing that is forcing us to marry the opposite sex is the legal constraint on same-sex marriage!

by Hellsangel Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:53 pm

Who should decide to legalize it? Should the people vote or should it be decided by (liberal) lawmakers?

by Mosquito Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:21 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Who should decide to legalize it? Should the people vote or should it be decided by (liberal) lawmakers?

Isnt liberal lawmaker an oxymoron? On a serious note, US constitution guarantees equal rights to all. That makes ban against gay marriage unconstitutional.

by Hellsangel Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:28 pm

PseudoIntellectual wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Who should decide to legalize it? Should the people vote or should it be decided by (liberal) lawmakers?

Isnt liberal lawmaker an oxymoron? On a serious note, US constitution guarantees equal rights to all. That makes ban against gay marriage unconstitutional.

I see. Which section? And your take on the 2nd Amendment? And while we are at it, your take on the 10th Amendment?

by Mosquito Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:41 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
PseudoIntellectual wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Who should decide to legalize it? Should the people vote or should it be decided by (liberal) lawmakers?

Isnt liberal lawmaker an oxymoron? On a serious note, US constitution guarantees equal rights to all. That makes ban against gay marriage unconstitutional.
I see. Which section? And your take on the 2nd Amendment? And while we are at it, your take on the 10th Amendment?

Whether I like it or not 2nd amendment is constitutional. As for my personal opinion, it made sense in 18th century not in 21st.

by charvaka Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:43 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Who should decide to legalize it? Should the people vote or should it be decided by (liberal) lawmakers?

In a democracy, lawmakers are elected representatives of the people elected precisely to make or change laws. So I don't see any problem with letting (liberal or conservative) lawmakers make laws.

I am more concerned about the situation when judges make such decisions and there is no accountability. For instance, Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education. In both cases, the courts were a decade or two ahead of public opinion. Today if you asked the American people to vote on the legality of abortion or the legality of racial segregation, the majority would vote in favor what the Supreme Court decided. But the lack of accountability of judges appointed for life leads to the aggrieved party feeling left out of the process altogether, which in turn strengthens the extreme elements of that side of the political divide. If Roe v. Wade were not a USSC decision, but abortion rights were the result of referenda (or laws made by lawmakers), the "family values" breed of conservatives wouldn't be so powerful within the GOP.

Your question is a moot one when looked at from a longer-term perspective. As the population becomes more socially liberal with time (in an inexorable trend that began with the Reformation in Europe), there won't be much of a difference between what a popular vote will decide and what liberal lawmakers decide. Within 10 years, the demographics of California will result in something like a Prop 8 repeal passing in a ballot initiative.

by charvaka Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:52 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
PseudoIntellectual wrote:On a serious note, US constitution guarantees equal rights to all. That makes ban against gay marriage unconstitutional.
Which section?

Equal protection clause, fourteenth amendment.

Hellsangel wrote:And your take on the 2nd Amendment? And while we are at it, your take on the 10th Amendment?

Neither has anything to do with the equal protection clause. The 14th amendment explicitly states that no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of its laws. By making that explicit prohibition, the question of equal treatment is not left to the states (which I suppose it was up until the 14th was passed, because per the 10th residual powers rested with the states.)

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:26 pm

CroMagnon wrote:
seven wrote:govt has every business keeping order in the society. if a personal choice is potentially causing social disorder, the govt will interfere.

This is US, not some backward Islamic country, where legalizing gay marriages will cause civil unrest. At best, some people will get offended.

Government's job is to protect individual rights, not to trample them. If we call elected representatives leaders, then they should behave like one. Leaders do not follow people's opinions - they form them.

i was referring to allowing polygamy. that will lead to social unrest in long run - gender imbalance for starters. we all know what that will lead to. increased crime rate and wat not. imagine having multiple wives and keeping up with their demands! domestic tensions will affect their productivity at work and they'll damage other things too ( remember wat sasti did to sulekha CH). all kinds of problems will arise if polygamy was more widespread.

and cro, true leaders dont have to follow necessarily but they do listen to everyone's opinions. they dont just form them without considering other people's vote.

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:27 pm

charvaka wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
PseudoIntellectual wrote:On a serious note, US constitution guarantees equal rights to all. That makes ban against gay marriage unconstitutional.
Which section?
Equal protection clause, fourteenth amendment.

Hellsangel wrote:And your take on the 2nd Amendment? And while we are at it, your take on the 10th Amendment?
Neither has anything to do with the equal protection clause. The 14th amendment explicitly states that no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of its laws. By making that explicit prohibition, the question of equal treatment is not left to the states (which I suppose it was up until the 14th was passed, because per the 10th residual powers rested with the states.)

How do you guys know sooo much about sooo much confused

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:39 pm

Imo, the govt should derecognize marriages-all kind.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:15 pm

seven wrote:How do you guys know sooo much about sooo much

Noob, you haven't seen The Matrix??

by charvaka Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:31 pm

kinnera wrote:Imo, the govt should derecognize marriages-all kind.

If the US Supreme Court rules that California's Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection clause, this may be the way that the social conservatives use to try to prevent legally recognized same-sex marriage. I don't think it will work with the general public though.

by Hellsangel Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:48 pm

Why do States regulate marriage and divorce laws then?

by charvaka Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:56 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Why do States regulate marriage and divorce laws then?

Because it is well within their powers to do so. It is not within the powers of the states to create unequal laws; hence gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:56 pm

Marriage itself is a sham. It violates the natural law-freedom. Maybe that's why it is called an 'institution'. It curbs individual freedom. Maybe that's why we see so many scandals of adultry. It doesn't seem to work.
Marriage is just a contract that binds two ppl. It's given the sanctity of religion/approval of god and the consequence of sin if ppl broke the vows. That didn't seem to work and we created the man-made laws to enforce it. That seems to be a failure too.
Why the heck should the govt lay rules on who to marry, how many to marry, when to marry, etc? I'm all for a free and evolved society.

by Kris Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:07 pm

The issue has legal implications in that it sets a precedent for redefining marriage. The polygamy question is a valid one. If indeed society is to live with alternative marriage constructs, going the vote route makes sense, rather than do this by judicial fiat. I think gay marriage will probably pass in fairly short order, with opposition dwindling especially among the younger demographic segments. Polygamy will not pass muster in the foreseeable future.

The other aspect to it is that 'marriage' existed as a construct beforehand and the legal aspect of it was grandfathered in later. To redefine it judicially seems like a power grab. On the other hand, the act of voting on it givers the power to society,

by Hellsangel Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:14 pm

charvaka wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Why do States regulate marriage and divorce laws then?
Because it is well within their powers to do so. It is not within the powers of the states to create unequal laws; hence gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Unequal laws? Minnesota and New Hampshire don't care if you might crack your skull by not wearing a helmet while riding your motorcycle. There are plenty of 'unequal' laws out there. It is not the Federal government's business to regulate the powers that rightfully belongs to the states.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:17 pm

kinnera wrote:Marriage itself is a sham. It violates the natural law-freedom. Maybe that's why it is called an 'institution'. It curbs individual freedom. Maybe that's why we see so many scandals of adultry. It doesn't seem to work.
Marriage is just a contract that binds two ppl. It's given the sanctity of religion/approval of god and the consequence of sin if ppl broke the vows. That didn't seem to work and we created the man-made laws to enforce it. That seems to be a failure too.
Why the heck should the govt lay rules on who to marry, how many to marry, when to marry, etc? I'm all for a free and evolved society.

Kinny aunty, I wholeheartedly agree with your views on marriage. Yet, legal recognition of marriage is very different from the religious / societal recognition. The former is necessary for highly banal matters such as inheritances, protection against abandonment etc. Laws against adultery which blur the difference between the legal and religious views of marriage are really outdated and need to be scrapped asap.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:33 pm

Hellsangel wrote:... should the Western nations that recognize it also recognize polygamy from the Middle Eastern countries?

Western countries are all about looking ahead not about going backwards Razz

by confuzzled dude Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:38 pm

charvaka wrote:
CroMagnon wrote:there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.
Polygamy is unequal. If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

and so called normal marriage is all about equality *ahem* now, how long have you been married for

by Kris Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:38 pm

Why the heck should the govt lay rules on who to marry, how many to marry, when to marry, etc? I'm all for a free and evolved society.

>>> The problem is that it started out as a more-or-less religious institution, but was co-opted as a legal idea for purposes of governance. To that extent, gov't does have a vested interest but it is limited to administrative matters such as taxes bequeathing wealth etc, but not in a moral sense. I could be wrong on this, but I believe if a woman conceives a child in an adulterous relationship, the child is considered to be that of the man she is married to, by default. Of course, society may feel otherwise.The long and short of it is that this is a hybrid institution. You can't tinker with it, without buy-in from the majority. As I mentioned in my other post, GM is getting close on this front and we probably will see it within the next few years.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:12 pm

charvaka wrote: If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

i'm all for taking away the government's role in deciding what is legal when it comes to relationships between consenting adult humans.

by charvaka Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:14 pm

Hellsangel wrote:It is not the Federal government's business to regulate the powers that rightfully belongs to the states.

I agree. That is why I dislike the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Helmet laws with MN and NH are unequal how?

Just to clarify: I don't think it's the federal government's business to regulate powers that belong to the states. However, the prohibition is a constitutional limitation of state power, and is therefore valid. And the federal supreme court has jurisdiction -- as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution -- to invalidate state laws that fall foul of the equal protection clause.

by Sponsored content