Gay Marriage is GO...

[♪alt13]

I agree. As a public servant, who is paid thru the taxes paid by the public, her religious belief should never come into play. She should be impeached, fined, held in contempt of court and ordered to pay back all wages received since the date the Supreme Court approved "gay marriage".

Shameful that KY is letting this go down like this.

SOOOO glad that it's KY and not UT.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I believe it is an elected position, so I guess that's why she can't just be terminated. Her "superiors" are the citizens who elected her. And she sets the policy for the office - so they can't just bring someone else in to issue the license if a gay couple applies, because she's not allowing her "office" to issue the license. Or something like that. But I would think she could be jailed for contempt or something. It does seem totally absurd that the situation could just continue in its current stalemate.

Being from Kentucky it's a good thing she doesn't object to cousins and siblings marrying.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

some more info:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/ky-clerk-defies-court-refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/



So she could refuse to record a deed for a same sex couple buying a house too, because it violates her beliefs?

And she could even deny their fishing licenses too. Good God, where will the madness end?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I very respectively disagree. IF polygamy is constitutionally allowed, its primary practitioners will be fundamentalist religious groups, and any reasonable observance of these groups finds that such abuses are inherent to how they operate.

Moreover, perhaps an even more important point is that polygamy is a choice/learned behavior and is not an immutable part of one's self, whereas sexual orientation is, much like race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Discrimination against the former is a very different thing and is justifiable in any number of cases, whereas discrimination in the latter is not justifiable, or is justifiable under only very limited circumstances with a very high hurdle to justify.

Feels like you are making up all sorts of arbitrary distinctions in order to justify the end result you desire.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Again, you're not giving a satisfying objective answer to why polygamy is immoral. You argument is basically "look at polygamists. They're bad". This is like conservatives who make the argument that a disproportionate number of serial killers are homosexuals, thus making homosexuality the cause of serial killing. We live in a country where polygamy is illegal, and thus only underground groups, who tend to be outside of mainstream norms, practice it.

I have not attempted to state whether polygamy is inherently immoral. I don't believe it is. It's practice, however, among the groups most likely to practice it is inherently immoral.

I think your analogy is a bad one. Homosexuality, as far I know, is not more or less likely to lead to behavior that harms others than heterosexuality. It's not inherently harmful in any normal, reasonable context. Just because conservatives make a bad argument (if indeed they make it), doesn't make me accountable for it.

Polygamy, however, as practiced by fundamentalist religious groups (where the practice is likely to be concentrated) is inherently harmful as practiced within the groups most likely to practice it. Thus it IS inherently harmful in a normal, reasonable context.

And you keep bringing up choice, for some incomprehensible reason. Choice has nothing to do with anything. Gay marriage shouldn't be prevented not because "aw, poor things. They can't help what they are. Just let them get married if they want. It's not like they're hurting anyone". It is because nobody has the right to decide for someone else who they're allowed to **** or spend part/all of their lives with.

I was just in DC and visited the National Archives. In the basement is an exhibit on civil rights. It includes a loop with Dr. King speaking, and he argues that (paraphrasing) that it is wrong to withhold rights to someone based solely inherent, immutable attributes, such as race. I agree with this argument, and I think the argument is equally valid for sexual orientation, which I see as equally inherent and immutable.

There are, in contrast, any number of valid scenarios in which society can legitimately constrain rights within the context of chosen behavior.

For example, the law of the land currently is that one cannot choose to withhold public services to gays based on religious beliefs. The former is an immutable part of self, while the latter is a choice.

That such things as sexual orientation, race, etc, are immutable parts of one's self is critically important to how we view this issue. I'd bet that if you go and read through the arguments for same sex marriage by its advocates, that you'll find this principle evoked with some prominence.

Right now polygamy is illegal, and so is having sex with a minor under a certain age. Fundamentalist groups you mentioned ignore both laws anyway. Making polygamy legal, while making it so that you have to be above the age of majority to get married (as it should be anyway), does not change how these fundamentalists operate. They can still get prosecuted for marrying an underage person, and they wouldn't be for marrying more than one adult, because there is no objective moral reason that they should be.

It's not just an issue of underage girls being forced into marriage. The practice of polygamy within fundamentalist communities violates the very principle/assumption of people entering into mutually beneficial arrangements by comment consent. Abuse, coercion, etc. are part and parcel of the transaction, regardless of age.

Another thing I want to say about the choice argument, is that it's ******** anyway. Marriage is a choice. Who you marry is a choice. For MANY people, even the sex of those you marry is a choice (called bisexual). And even if the whole thing was a choice, it CHANGES NOTHING. Homosexual marriage should still be legal even if homosexuality was a choice.

Again, go to the legal arguments for same sex marriage, and I'll bet you'll find the immutable essence argument made. I'm far from the only one asserting the relevance of this.

I agree that same sex marriage should be legal regardless, I am not disputing this argument.

This argument, however, only works with like minded people (like us) who are inclined to support same sex marriage in any case. It is not a compelling argument to try with someone inclined to oppose it.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I have not attempted to state whether polygamy is inherently immoral. I don't believe it is. It's practice, however, among the groups most likely to practice it is inherently immoral.

I think your analogy is a bad one. Homosexuality, as far I know, is not more or less likely to lead to behavior that harms others than heterosexuality. It's not inherently harmful in any normal, reasonable context. Just because conservatives make a bad argument (if indeed they make it), doesn't make me accountable for it.

Polygamy, however, as practiced by fundamentalist religious groups (where the practice is likely to be concentrated) is inherently harmful as practiced within the groups most likely to practice it. Thus it IS inherently harmful in a normal, reasonable context.




I was just in DC and visited the National Archives. In the basement is an exhibit on civil rights. It includes a loop with Dr. King speaking, and he argues that (paraphrasing) that it is wrong to withhold rights to someone based solely inherent, immutable attributes, such as race. I agree with this argument, and I think the argument is equally valid for sexual orientation, which I see as equally inherent and immutable.

There are, in contrast, any number of valid scenarios in which society can legitimately constrain rights within the context of chosen behavior.

For example, the law of the land currently is that one cannot choose to withhold public services to gays based on religious beliefs. The former is an immutable part of self, while the latter is a choice.

That such things as sexual orientation, race, etc, are immutable parts of one's self is critically important to how we view this issue. I'd bet that if you go and read through the arguments for same sex marriage by its advocates, that you'll find this principle evoked with some prominence.



It's not just an issue of underage girls being forced into marriage. The practice of polygamy within fundamentalist communities violates the very principle/assumption of people entering into mutually beneficial arrangements by comment consent. Abuse, coercion, etc. are part and parcel of the transaction, regardless of age.



Again, go to the legal arguments for same sex marriage, and I'll bet you'll find the immutable essence argument made. I'm far from the only one asserting the relevance of this.

I agree that same sex marriage should be legal regardless, I am not disputing this argument.

This argument, however, only works with like minded people (like us) who are inclined to support same sex marriage in any case. It is not a compelling argument to try with someone inclined to oppose it.

I know a guy who is an *******. It is an immutable part of who he is. So his behavior is okay because immutable traits are simply a part of who we are?

BTW, I am for gay marriage, but I am not impressed by the arguments you are using to support it.

 

[Siro]

I have not attempted to state whether polygamy is inherently immoral. I don't believe it is. It's practice, however, among the groups most likely to practice it is inherently immoral.

I think your analogy is a bad one. Homosexuality, as far I know, is not more or less likely to lead to behavior that harms others than heterosexuality. It's not inherently harmful in any normal, reasonable context. Just because conservatives make a bad argument (if indeed they make it), doesn't make me accountable for it.

Polygamy, however, as practiced by fundamentalist religious groups (where the practice is likely to be concentrated) is inherently harmful as practiced within the groups most likely to practice it. Thus it IS inherently harmful in a normal, reasonable context.

But polygamy is ONLY practiced in fundamentalist groups because they're the only ones willing to ignore the law to do it. Anyone who practices polygamy will be, by definition, outside of social norms, and the majority will consequently find their actions/lifestyle objectionable. It is not a meaningful argument of why polygamy should be banned. And the analogy to the serial killer argument is relevant. It tries to argue that homosexuality should not be accepted because it is practiced by bad people. That's your argument. You say nothing about why polygamy itself is immoral, only about the character of those who currently practice it. Polygamy had been practiced historically in the West, and is still practiced today in many parts of the world. The profile of those who had practiced, and are still practicing it, is different from the FLDS cultists. Additionally, we have no model for the profile of legal polygamists in a secular democratic society, so we cannot make any conclusions about that. We can only discuss the moral validity of the act itself. And you have not done so.

I was just in DC and visited the National Archives. In the basement is an exhibit on civil rights. It includes a loop with Dr. King speaking, and he argues that (paraphrasing) that it is wrong to withhold rights to someone based solely inherent, immutable attributes, such as race. I agree with this argument, and I think the argument is equally valid for sexual orientation, which I see as equally inherent and immutable.

There are, in contrast, any number of valid scenarios in which society can legitimately constrain rights within the context of chosen behavior.

For example, the law of the land currently is that one cannot choose to withhold public services to gays based on religious beliefs. The former is an immutable part of self, while the latter is a choice.

That such things as sexual orientation, race, etc, are immutable parts of one's self is critically important to how we view this issue. I'd bet that if you go and read through the arguments for same sex marriage by its advocates, that you'll find this principle evoked with some prominence.

You are not providing a reason WHY it should be so. Only that it has been said that it should be so. You have a right to your body and your life. You have a right to share them with whoever, and how many ever, you want. The law allows you to do that right now, just as long as you don't marry more than one of them. I have yet to hear the rational connection between the "immutability of orientation" and this. Seems like a random appeal to authority.

Additionally, I have already responded to your arbitrary distinction of "choice". I do not see a response to what I said, so let me repeat. How is polygamy any less of a choice than homosexuality? If you're a homosexual man, you can fall in love with another man, and then choose you want to marry him. If you're that same homosexual, you can fall in love with a man, marry him, fall in love with another man some time later, but you cannot also marry him unless you break up your marriage with the first, whom you would still love and want to be with. I do not see the choice connection at all.

It's not just an issue of underage girls being forced into marriage. The practice of polygamy within fundamentalist communities violates the very principle/assumption of people entering into mutually beneficial arrangements by comment consent. Abuse, coercion, etc. are part and parcel of the transaction, regardless of age.

Society does not consider religious conviction to be sufficient reason for invalidating consent. If an adult wants to become someone's 12th wife because they believe his ***** is the only way to heaven, it is their choice. Unless this standard changes, and it won't, the point about the religious indoctrination is moot. Society, on the other hand, does not believe people under a certain age can give meaningful consent, and that would still be the case if polygamy is legalized. If I was emperor of Earth, I would give little credence to ANY religious belief that conflicted with objective reality. But I'm not. And neither are you.

Again, go to the legal arguments for same sex marriage, and I'll bet you'll find the immutable essence argument made. I'm far from the only one asserting the relevance of this.

I agree that same sex marriage should be legal regardless, I am not disputing this argument.

This argument, however, only works with like minded people (like us) who are inclined to support same sex marriage in any case. It is not a compelling argument to try with someone inclined to oppose it.

I support sex marriage for the same reason I support polygamy. Not because gays have no choice but to be gay. But because in my moral perspective, which is shared by most in Western societies, no one can dictate how another should live without a rational reason to do so. I don't see anything here that suggests you disagree with the principle. You have, therefore, to give an rational reason of why polygamy itself is immoral, if you think the law should prevent people from practicing it.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I know a guy who is an *******. It is an immutable part of who he is. So his behavior is okay because immutable traits are simply a part of who we are?

BTW, I am for gay marriage, but I am not impressed by the arguments you are using to support it.

It took me all of 20 seconds to find this:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Search for the word immutable.

I'd bet that this is far from the only example.

As I said, I'm not the only one making this argument.

I hope you didn't hurt your knee from jerking it too hard.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

But polygamy is ONLY practiced in fundamentalist groups because they're the only ones willing to ignore the law to do it. Anyone who practices polygamy will be, by definition, outside of social norms, and the majority will consequently find their actions/lifestyle objectionable. It is not a meaningful argument of why polygamy should be banned. And the analogy to the serial killer argument is relevant. It tries to argue that homosexuality should not be accepted because it is practiced by bad people. That's your argument. You say nothing about why polygamy itself is immoral, only about the character of those who currently practice it. Polygamy had been practiced historically in the West, and is still practiced today in many parts of the world. The profile of those who had practiced, and are still practicing it, is different from the FLDS cultists. Additionally, we have no model for the profile of legal polygamists in a secular democratic society, so we cannot make any conclusions about that. We can only discuss the moral validity of the act itself. And you have not done so.




You are not providing a reason WHY it should be so. Only that it has been said that it should be so. You have a right to your body and your life. You have a right to share them with whoever, and how many ever, you want. The law allows you to do that right now, just as long as you don't marry more than one of them. I have yet to hear the rational connection between the "immutability of orientation" and this. Seems like a random appeal to authority.

Additionally, I have already responded to your arbitrary distinction of "choice". I do not see a response to what I said, so let me repeat. How is polygamy any less of a choice than homosexuality? If you're a homosexual man, you can fall in love with another man, and then choose you want to marry him. If you're that same homosexual, you can fall in love with a man, marry him, fall in love with another man some time later, but you cannot also marry him unless you break up your marriage with the first, whom you would still love and want to be with. I do not see the choice connection at all.



Society does not consider religious conviction to be sufficient reason for invalidating consent. If an adult wants to become someone's 12th wife because they believe his ***** is the only way to heaven, it is their choice. Unless this standard changes, and it won't, the point about the religious indoctrination is moot. Society, on the other hand, does not believe people under a certain age can give meaningful consent, and that would still be the case if polygamy is legalized. If I was emperor of Earth, I would give little credence to ANY religious belief that conflicted with objective reality. But I'm not. And neither are you.




I support sex marriage for the same reason I support polygamy. Not because gays have no choice but to be gay. But because in my moral perspective, which is shared by most in Western societies, no one can dictate how another should live without a rational reason to do so. I don't see anything here that suggests you disagree with the principle. You have, therefore, to give an rational reason of why polygamy itself is immoral, if you think the law should prevent people from practicing it.

I don't have the time to provide a reply.

Maybe if I can find time later, I'll attempt a reply.

I just fundamentally disagree that there's no rational reason to make polygamy illegal. I've given my reasons. Polygamy and abuse are part and parcel--there's no way to allow the former and prevent the latter.

I've not convinced you, and vice versa.

As for the immutability argument, it is common and widespread and will be found in legal briefs on this issue.

 

[Stoked]

I was going to reply but I feel that Siro handled this very well.

Edit: "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Siro again."

You crushed it Siro.

 

[Siro]

As for the immutability argument, it is common and widespread and will be found in legal briefs on this issue.

I no longer debate religion with anyone except a select few. It is because I will spend hours carefully crafting ontological and epistemological arguments, and the response will often boil down to "Oh, so all of those who believe in God are wrong, and you're right! Suuuure".

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

But polygamy is ONLY practiced in fundamentalist groups because they're the only ones willing to ignore the law to do it.

You don't know this, and I'd bet it's not true. I’d bet, moreover, that a quick Google search will prove this to be a wrong assumption.

It’s not widespread, but certainly not restricted to fundamentalist religious groups.

Almost any law will be ignored by large numbers of people, so it strikes me that to argue that only religious groups practice polygamy now because no one else is willing to violate the law to be a false argument, with millions of examples to demonstrate why it is false.

Polygamy will undoubtedly increase if made legal among non religious groups, but it would be greatly disproportionately practiced by fundamental religious groups. I would bet, moreover, that you’d see this practice flourish within the context of fundamentalist religion were it to be made legal.

Anyone who practices polygamy will be, by definition, outside of social norms, and the majority will consequently find their actions/lifestyle objectionable.

And so what? I would never argue that just because one finds a practice objectionable this is sufficient reason to outlaw it. My frame of reference is a practice that is fundamentally and intrinsically harmful in common practice, not one that is merely ‘objectionable.’ It’s a simple distinction, and I’m a bit surprised something so simple escapes you.

It is not a meaningful argument of why polygamy should be banned. And the analogy to the serial killer argument is relevant. It tries to argue that homosexuality should not be accepted because it is practiced by bad people. That's your argument. .

No it is NOT my argument. That type of reasoning (e.g., something is practiced by bad people), could be used to outlaw any behavior, and as such as no practical usefulness. My frame of reference is not the nature of the people, but the nature of the practice. It is NOT that bad people are practicing polygamy, it is that the practice itself is inherently and intrinsically harmful, within the context of fundamental religious communities. Again, the nature of the people is irrelevant—it is the nature of the practice.

Again, this is a simple point and you’re either not getting it or intentionally ignoring it.

So, you example is poorly chosen and irrelevant to the argument I’m making.

You say nothing about why polygamy itself is immoral, only about the character of those who currently practice it.

No that is NOT what I’m saying. You are misrepresenting my argument. (Or alternatively, I’ve not stated it well, which I hope I’ve rectified here.)

Polygamy had been practiced historically in the West, and is still practiced today in many parts of the world.

Historically practiced in the West by Mormons, predominantly. And it’s practice was very similar to what we see in the FLDS today. A practice that intrinsically harmed, demeaned and dehumanized women, and in many cases coerced them into marriages that they would not have entered into on their own free will.

Marriage is a contract, and for the contract to be acceptable (as with any contract) there needs to exist the presumption that it was entered into willfully, absent coercion, and with consideration from both sides. We CANNOT make this assumption with regards to polygamy, as practiced in fundamental religious communities.

The profile of those who had practiced, and are still practicing it, is different from the FLDS cultists. .

That it is practiced in other areas of the world (e.g., Africa, Yemen, etc.) is hardly reason to recommend it. Yes, the profile is different, but the practice is equally inherently harmful, demeaning, and dehumanizing there as it is in, say, Colorado City.

Honestly, I don’t think we want to take our cues for social/legal standards in the US from Yemen.

Additionally, we have no model for the profile of legal polygamists in a secular democratic society, so we cannot make any conclusions about that.

No we can’t know for certain, I suppose. But we, nonetheless, have a pretty good idea what form it would take—a incremental increase in non-religious polygamy and a surge in fundamental religious polygamy.

We can only discuss the moral validity of the act itself. And you have not done so.

The morality of the practice itself is very visible. Look no further than Colorado City. THIS is the face of polygamy. The moral implications of it are plain.

Let me conclude by saying, that, if I recall Dalamon’s post accurately, the Canadian Supreme Court has reached the same conclusion I have (or one similar to it). Thus, any suggestion that my position on this is way out there and has no basis in experience or Western legal tradition strikes me as unfounded.

You are not providing a reason WHY it should be so. Only that it has been said that it should be so. You have a right to your body and your life. You have a right to share them with whoever, and how many ever, you want. The law allows you to do that right now, just as long as you don't marry more than one of them.

I agree with this. And if this was the ONLY issue at stake, we’d be in perfect harmony. But it’s not the only issue. It’s not just a matter of loving who one wants; it’s a matter of making legal a practice that, as it will be predominantly practiced, is harmful, demeaning, and dehumanizing.

I am a bit confused as to why this point seems beyond your grasp. You may disagree with it, but you refuse to acknowledge it and continue to argue against a point I am not making.

I have yet to hear the rational connection between the "immutability of orientation" and this. Seems like a random appeal to authority.

Well, if you don’t take my word for it, do some searching of the legal arguments made in favor of same sex marriage. I am confident you’ll find that this is anything but a random appeal to authority, but rather is one basis for legal arguments being made on this issue.

Additionally, I have already responded to your arbitrary distinction of "choice". I do not see a response to what I said, so let me repeat. How is polygamy any less of a choice than homosexuality?

Sexual orientation is NOT a choice. The number of spouses one chooses to take is. Honestly how much more obvious does it need to be for you to get it?

If you're a homosexual man, you can fall in love with another man, and then choose you want to marry him. If you're that same homosexual, you can fall in love with a man, marry him, fall in love with another man some time later, but you cannot also marry him unless you break up your marriage with the first, whom you would still love and want to be with. I do not see the choice connection at all.

Then you are not trying hard enough. That one man loves another man is not a choice. How many men he chooses to marry is. Again, how obvious does it need to be for you to get it?

Society does not consider religious conviction to be sufficient reason for invalidating consent. If an adult wants to become someone's 12th wife because they believe his ***** is the only way to heaven, it is their choice. .

So you are now conceding it is a choice. Now we’re getting somewhere. Finally.

Unless this standard changes, and it won't, the point about the religious indoctrination is moot. Society, on the other hand, does not believe people under a certain age can give meaningful consent, and that would still be the case if polygamy is legalized. If I was emperor of Earth, I would give little credence to ANY religious belief that conflicted with objective reality. But I'm not. And neither are you.

It would still be illegal, but it would nonetheless proliferate. Plus, it’s not just minors; it is an entire system in which the presumption of free will and mutual consideration in entering into marital contracts cannot hold.

I support sex marriage for the same reason I support polygamy. Not because gays have no choice but to be gay. But because in my moral perspective, which is shared by most in Western societies, no one can dictate how another should live without a rational reason to do so.

I agree with you to this point--provided that how you live does not impose harm on others. There is no tradition in Western societies that people can do whatever they want, and that practices that impose harm on others constitute rational reasons to constrain those practices.

I don't see anything here that suggests you disagree with the principle. You have, therefore, to give an rational reason of why polygamy itself is immoral, if you think the law should prevent people from practicing it.

I have given you ample reason why I think polygamy is immoral. I believe those reasons are rational and justifiable. That you can't see this and consistently argue against points I'm not making, leads me to suspect you're not making much of an effort to understand them.