|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Seriously, this was in the SF Chronicle yesterday Quote:
Profound issues in Seattle lawsuit State high court set to rule on gay rights
- Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to marry same-sex couples -- a defiant act two years ago that soon was emulated in Portland, Ore., and New Paltz, N.Y. -- gay rights supporters in Seattle demanded that their elected officials do the same.
Instead, King County Executive Ron Sims placed an unusual phone call.
"He said, 'I don't want to break the law. Will you please sue me to strike down the law?' " said Lisa M. Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center. "That's not a call we get very often."
The Washington State Supreme Court is expected to rule any day in the case that resulted and a second, related lawsuit. Not since the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts in 2003 ordered that state's legislature to legalize same-sex marriage has a gay marriage case drawn as much attention. Legal experts say the rulings may serve as a gauge of the national mood and could prompt another battle in Congress over a federal marriage amendment.
"We're watching this case very closely," said Tom McClusky, director of government affairs for the Family Research Council, the conservative Washington, D.C., lobbying organization leading the effort for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
"We've been pushing Congress even before the Washington state ruling just in anticipation because we see this as a matter of utmost importance," he said.
The two Washington state cases explore two major issues being debated across the nation: whether marriage is a right and how the government can allow straight people to marry but not gays or lesbians.
"The cases present constitutional issues that judges haven't thought about a great deal yet," said Matt Coles, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "It's not just the narrow issue of marriage but how you think about laws that discriminate against gay people under the equal protection clause, how you think about what a fundamental right is.
"Whenever there's a situation like that," Coles added, "I think it's very hard to be sure how (judges) are going to go."
Link to complete article
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
From what I've seen... about 5.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
National ReviewLooks like it's not only The Netherlands that's headed down the slippery slope to polygamy. A new study for Canada's federal justice department has just recommended that Canada legalize polygamy.
This would involve not only the abolition of anti-polygamy laws, but also the regulation of polygamy. That is, it is recommended that the law provide "clearer spousal support and inheritance rights" to polygamous families. Obviously, that would be a major step toward eventual full recognition of polygamous marriages.
The study in question was authored by a professor at Queens University named Martha Bailey. Bailey was a key author of "Beyond Conjugality," the report of the Law Commission of Canada I discussed in "Beyond Gay Marriage."
"Beyond Conjugality" directly suggested moving to a partnership system that would put multi-partner unions on a par with marriage.
The funny thing about this news story is that it refers to a second report that scoffs at the idea of a slippery slope from same-sex marriage to polygamy. Polygamy, this second report says, undermines equality for women. Yet the first report clearly contradicts this view. It says that polygamy per se is not the problem, and that abuses within polygamous marriage can be dealt with by other sorts of laws. And again, if the proposal is to tailor new laws of spousal support and inheritance rights to polygamous families, can calls for formal recognition be far behind?
Right now Canada's conservatives are on track to unseat the liberal government. If so, don't expect to see these reforms enacted into law right away. But the direction Canada's liberals want to move in is clear. You might recall conservatives fretting that a recognition of gay marriage could soon lead to legalizing polygamy and incest. Those concerns were typically scoffed at by liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
You might recall conservatives fretting that a recognition of gay marriage could soon lead to legalizing polygamy and incest. Those concerns were typically scoffed at by liberals.
The gay person's plight is not the polygamist's or the incestualist's plight.
What do you want from us?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
As you yourself once remarked, "slippery slope, babe."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
That's no answer, shyster.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
It's really great how you miss the entire point Jim.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
OK, I'm so stupid, what's his point then, boy?
That making gays equal to straights with respect to marriage should automatically extend to polygamists and those who wish to practice incest, and so, gays should be denied that equality because of the pandora's box that will open?
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2006-01-13 11:36 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Sorry Jim but you have to be an ignorant homophobe to not be able to recognize that homosexuality & polygamy are two different things. It's not a slippery slope but a leap. BTW, Dale & I have now passed the 15yr mark of being together. 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
OK, I'm so stupid, what's his point then, boy?
That making gays equal to straights with respect to marriage should automatically extend to polygamists and those who wish to practice incest, and so, gays should be denied that equality because of the pandora's box that will open?
Here we go again...
The institution of marriage isn't a right. It's not even a privelege. It is assigned to straight couples because it actually works for their ratio. Whereas with homosexual couples, it doesn't work at all.
So not only would allowing same-sex marriage be pointlessly cost-inefficient, but it would also open up the flood gates for other ratios that have no point to marry.
Now I will wait for Jim's rebut, ready with every single post made in the past, on this thread, that has already covered the subject, which he feels like carrying on as if it was never even discussed. I suppose, however, that I should be glad with the fact that he's finally admitted that other unorthodox (and even more stupid) forms of marriage woulf be allowed with the sanctioning of gay marriage.
Last edited by Pariah; 2006-01-14 12:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
The institution of marriage isn't a right. It's not even a privelege. It is assigned to straight couples because it actually works for their ratio. Whereas with homosexual couples, it doesn't work at all.
What does that even mean?
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
What do you think it means?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Actually gays have been getting legally married in other countries for a couple of years now, so folks might want to update a bit when they make their declarations about marriage, so they look a little less ignorant.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
What do you think it means?
I don't know, I am unsure of what you mean by marriage being "assigned", and how it only works for the hetero "ratio".
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
assigned - To set apart for a particular purpose; designate
ratio - The relation between two quantities expressed as the quotient of one divided by the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Yes. I know what the words mean. However, your usage of those words was peculiar, and I was hoping you'd actually explain what you meant. I guess I won't be completely heartbroken if you don't, though.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
I think what they're talking about is creating a body of law to define custody rights and inheritance rights for people in polyamorous families. Polyamory is not as uncommon as one might think. I know people that live in this situation though none have children.
But it does happen where say, Pariah & Lor, a married couple hook up with G-man & Batwoman, another married couple, and form a household. In the course of this liason Pariah and Batwoman produce a child. In the event of a break-up, who should have the rights of paternity, G-man or Pariah (imagine picking one of those wankers for a father)? Or G-man dies intestate. How should the rich lawyers dough be distributed?
Does current law aimed at traditional couples provide equity in these situations? I think not. And what does incest have to do with polyamory anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
I suppose, however, that I should be glad with the fact that he's finally admitted that other unorthodox (and even more stupid) forms of marriage woulf be allowed with the sanctioning of gay marriage.
I have admitted no such thing.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
National Review
Looks like it's not only The Netherlands that's headed down the slippery slope to polygamy. A new study for Canada's federal justice department has just recommended that Canada legalize polygamy.
This would involve not only the abolition of anti-polygamy laws, but also the regulation of polygamy. That is, it is recommended that the law provide "clearer spousal support and inheritance rights" to polygamous families. Obviously, that would be a major step toward eventual full recognition of polygamous marriages.
The study in question was authored by a professor at Queens University named Martha Bailey. Bailey was a key author of "Beyond Conjugality," the report of the Law Commission of Canada I discussed in "Beyond Gay Marriage."
"Beyond Conjugality" directly suggested moving to a partnership system that would put multi-partner unions on a par with marriage.
The funny thing about this news story is that it refers to a second report that scoffs at the idea of a slippery slope from same-sex marriage to polygamy. Polygamy, this second report says, undermines equality for women. Yet the first report clearly contradicts this view. It says that polygamy per se is not the problem, and that abuses within polygamous marriage can be dealt with by other sorts of laws. And again, if the proposal is to tailor new laws of spousal support and inheritance rights to polygamous families, can calls for formal recognition be far behind?
Right now Canada's conservatives are on track to unseat the liberal government. If so, don't expect to see these reforms enacted into law right away. But the direction Canada's liberals want to move in is clear.
You might recall conservatives fretting that a recognition of gay marriage could soon lead to legalizing polygamy and incest. Those concerns were typically scoffed at by liberals.
This article is stupid.
It reports that a new study recommends laws providing clearer spousal support and inheritance rights to polygamous families. That's pretty much all it has to go on.
Then it says that this is an obvious slippery slope toward the legalization of polygamy, and therefore, gay marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy.
It assumes one slippery slope to prove another.
Come on.
And posters on this board are jumping on this, using it as evidence?
Wow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
When someone uses the philosophy that equates homosexuality between consenting adults to polygamy or incest or pedophilia, it tells me a couple of things:
-they don't understand the vast majority of gays and the psychology of gay adults
-they have a general anti-gay sentiment
The things that surprised me and disappointed me and sometimes disgusted me the most after I joined the RKMB community were how vocal the anti-gay sentiment is around here. No, I'm not lumping everyone here who's not an out bi or gay person as homophobic or even gay-unsympathetic. But there are enough posters who post regularly who strike me as very gay-unfriendly.
It seems that comic books were the thing that brought most of us here in the first place. And it's no secret that comics are a major hobby to many gay and bi people. So I'm surprised at the lack of gay support that I often encounter here. There are times in this forum that I feel decidedly unwelcome as a gay man.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
When someone uses the philosophy that equates homosexuality between consenting adults to polygamy
If polygamy also involves consenting adults, then why is it wrong to equate it to homosexuality?
Both involve consenting adults.
Both involve sexual relations.
Both involve, potentially, the right to marry whomever you choose.
I can see why you might take a burn to comparisons with incest or pedophilia, but why polygamy?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Because polygamy reduces the status of women within their own marriages. Instead of being "one of two," a woman in a polygamist relationship becomes "one of many."
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Because polygamy reduces the status of women within their own marriages. Instead of being "one of two," a woman in a polygamist relationship becomes "one of many."
If, however, the woman wants to be "one of many" and is a consenting adult, what's the harm?
And your decree that polygamy "reduces" the status of a woman is a value judgement on your part, no different than a value judgement by someone else that being gay is unsavory or unmanly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Well, frankly, I'm less likely to make a stink about the issue of polygamy than incest or pedophilia.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Because polygamy reduces the status of women within their own marriages. Instead of being "one of two," a woman in a polygamist relationship becomes "one of many."
Why do you assume that it's one male with multiple wives? Often people in polyamorous relationships have a femme dom that has several male slaves.
Wouldn't you love to attend the collaring of G-man? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Because polygamy reduces the status of women within their own marriages. Instead of being "one of two," a woman in a polygamist relationship becomes "one of many."
I agree that phychologically the plight of the homosexual and the polygimist are worlds apart, but I don't think their plight is any different legaly.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Even lawyers should be able to split the legal hair that gay marriage and str8 marriage both involve 2 spouses and 2 spouses only.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I agree that phychologically the plight of the homosexual and the polygimist are worlds apart, but I don't think their plight is any different legaly.
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
|
|
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025 |
bery similair, i give jim the point on 2 spouses....i think they, in court will seperate gay marriage from polygamy with the 2 spouses arguement. to make gay marriage closer to what alread constitutes marriage and what is illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I agree that phychologically the plight of the homosexual and the polygimist are worlds apart, but I don't think their plight is any different legaly.
Agreed.
gay marriage and str8 marriage both involve 2 spouses and 2 spouses only.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
True, which makes them worlds apart on many different levels, but I agree with wbam that the legal plights are the same.
Many in America want marriage to be defined as only between one man and one woman. Those in support of gay marriage have a problem with the man/woman part. Polygamy supporters have a problem with the one/one part.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
True, which makes them worlds apart on many different levels, but I agree with wbam that the legal plights are the same.
Many in America want marriage to be defined as only between one man and one woman. Those in support of gay marriage have a problem with the man/woman part. Polygamy supporters have a problem with the one/one part.
Acceptance of the gay marriage legal position does not and should not logically constitute acceptance of the polygamist position.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
|
|
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025 |
it woud help them in the sense of consenting adults are allowed to marry, what was not allowed is now acceptable, why not polygamy also, when all are consenting. they will argue that changes are made, why not go one more and allow those that wanna marry who they choose, man, woman, or multiple mn or women.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
big_pimp_tim said:
it woud help them in the sense of consenting adults are allowed to marry, what was not allowed is now acceptable, why not polygamy also, when all are consenting. they will argue that changes are made, why not go one more and allow those that wanna marry who they choose, man, woman, or multiple mn or women.
As currently practiced in the USA there are significant social and governmental costs associated with polygyny. I believe you will find the highest rates of AFDC dependence are in Southeastern Utah where heretical sects of Mormonism continue the practice. The husband is legally married to only one wife while the others are viewed as single moms in the eyes of the law. Those other wives derive welfare benefits which in turn go to the father/husband.
Those of you that are married with children know that careing for a family is a tremendously expensive proposition. Can you imagine your present situation times 3 or 4? Very few of us could provide adequate support in that situation. It falls to the taxpayer to pick up the slack.
That is the present situation with polygyny. Would bringing the practice into legitimate marriage help or hurt? I don't know. Any of you guys have a theory?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
|
|
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025 |
i don't think that it would change it. they would still be recieving government support. maybe not as much. to make the man with 3 wives keep from producing 10 hilderen when he should have stopped with 2 it might be necessary if married to restrict the aide. but then it may just cause them to opt not to marry anyway, even though they legally could to keep the single mother aide. therefore makin it mute. they could get married but most won't to keep the aide they are dependant on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
True, which makes them worlds apart on many different levels, but I agree with wbam that the legal plights are the same.
Many in America want marriage to be defined as only between one man and one woman. Those in support of gay marriage have a problem with the man/woman part. Polygamy supporters have a problem with the one/one part.
Acceptance of the gay marriage legal position does not and should not logically constitute acceptance of the polygamist position.
It does, because what you're asking for is that the government not make a value judgment on your union before granting a certificate.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
gay marriage and str8 marriage both involve 2 spouses and 2 spouses only.
I don't see why that's so hard to get your head around.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
|
|
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025 |
i am thinkin their point is by allowing what was considered unacceptable, by allowing 2 consenting adults to do as they choose, why not allow 3, or 4. why not allow consenting adults to do what is considered unacceptable as far as marriage is concerned
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
When someone uses the philosophy that equates homosexuality between consenting adults to polygamy or incest or pedophilia, it tells me a couple of things:
-they don't understand the vast majority of gays and the psychology of gay adults
Actually Jim, I understand your version on gay psychology just fine.
Quote:
It seems that comic books were the thing that brought most of us here in the first place. And it's no secret that comics are a major hobby to many gay and bi people. So I'm surprised at the lack of gay support that I often encounter here. There are times in this forum that I feel decidedly unwelcome as a gay man.
I know I've read a couple times from Darknight and Whomod that the majority of people here are to the right....And that's pretty much bullshit.
If you hadn't noticed in previous threads, you have an overwhelming amount of support here. You're usually arguing these points on gay marriage against one or two people. Not a barrage of dissent. On the other hand, we have a whole bunch of posters popping into these threads and making cracks about whoever's arguing against you as being homophobic or 'protesting too much'--And this is multiple people mind you.
Quote:
big_pimp_tim said:
i am thinkin their point is by allowing what was considered unacceptable, by allowing 2 consenting adults to do as they choose, why not allow 3, or 4. why not allow consenting adults to do what is considered unacceptable as far as marriage is concerned
Last edited by Pariah; 2006-01-16 9:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Should I even read what Pariah has to say about this?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
