does he make a valid point?

[smileyeagle1021]

Okay, for those who don't live in a desert wasteland, your local papers may not publish Cal Thomas, for those of you so fortunate, here is his most recent article
http://sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/499...deral.html.csp

He argues that outlawing polygamy sets a precedent supporting outlawing of gay marriage.
Does he make a valid point?
If he does, what is the logical conclusion we should draw?
Should gay marriage be banned because polygamy is banned?
Should polygamy be permitted along with gay marriage?
Is it a valid point but not a determining factor in the debate?

As a complete side note, I do love how he points out

The rest of us have the equivalent standing of 1950s segregationists.

Well sir, if the shoe fits...

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Does he make a valid point?

He does in the sense that the Federal Government has a precedence of being able to say what can and cannot be a legal form of marriage. That one ruling gives weight to any who want to use it as a way of fighting Same Sex Marriage.

On the other hand, the argument could be looked at as the law forbids "plural marriage. Upon looking up the relevant case, I saw nothing that defines what marriage should be apart from it cannot be plural.

To quote:

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

If he does, what is the logical conclusion we should draw?

There is no definitive, logical conclusion that can be drawn since there are two ways of looking at the ruling and both are logical ones.

Should gay marriage be banned because polygamy is banned?

Not in my mind. Same Sex Marriage should be allowed since...
1. Love is Love regardless of sex
2. There would be no difference between a SSM and a DSM in terms of what legal rights and benefits they have.
3. Contrary to popular belief (And one that is dwindling slowly thank Goddess) it has no impact on the "Sanctity of Marriage" or at least less of one than that of the celebrities and their marriages that last for periods shorter than the woman's 18-hour bra.

Should polygamy be permitted along with gay marriage?

I would say yes if it wasn't for one point. In the Mormon faith, women really have no significant place other than to be a housewife and a mother of as many children as they can produce. (I know this from a Mormon Aunt who tried to convert me on several occasions). So the implication of Polygamy is that only the Men can have multiple wives.

Were it not for this, I'd say "fine". If everyone in the family grouping is happy with each other...so be it.

Is it a valid point but not a determining factor in the debate?

It is a valid point, but on the same coin it isn't thanks to the many ways of taking that point. It shouldn't be a determining factor in the debate, but I fear that it will be.

[Plaidman]

Straight Marriage Should be Legal.
Gay Marriage Should be Legal.
Polygomy Should be Legal (As long as it's all consenting, not that freaking mass marriage of 14 year old girls they recently busted).

People in love should be allowed to cherish their fucking love. Yeah, I hate it that people can find so much love so easily, while not easy for me. But I don't belive people should be punished because I can't, which is why I'm sure so many people push for marriage, but limit every one. (In cases of Polygomy, people are worried that one guy is going to have fifty wives like the TERRORISTS!, and thus limit what chance they can get a wife, plus legal actions of what power each wife has, but lawyers are smart enough and people can put limits on it. Does it breed jealousy amount wives? Sure. But hey, your in a marriage)

Oh waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait. Being in a polygamous relationship does not mean that one man has that many wives. How silly of me to belive that. Poly is group. That can be any mix of genders people. That means it could be three husbands and a wife, it could mean four wives two men, hell, it could be ten husbands!

Love is more powerful then hate. Hope one day to combat my hate with love of someone. (Other then friend love, which I'm... not in short supply it seems). Soul mates can exist. Love between people, that power...

The power of love that combats everything life throws at them. The ability to stop each other's pain. The ability that no matter what happens, you will stand by her or her by him. That strength to rely on each other. To be each other's best friends. To do whatever it takes to make that person happy.

Yeah. That is greatest thing in the world, and something I crave so much. It sucks not having that. It sucks to feel like utter crap because no-one loves you anymore then a friend, to spend any amount of time to be that close that it uttery hurts when something happens to them, not you, them. They are in pain, and it hurts you, or that they have such incredible power to even hurt you if they feel like it, but they don't cause that love is that powerful.

It can be shared. It can happen. People can fall in love with many people at once. Does it suck it can't happen to everyone? yeah. But no reason to punish them because you were found by whatever runs this parody of life that you don't get that, but let them be happy. You have nothing to gain by stopping them. If your not allowed to have love, you sure as hell aren't going to magically find it simply because hey, their limit on love.


Emotions are a part of humanity. We created laws. They have no real part of the human spirit.

We create them to make them protect us.

Love? That should never have a legal law against them.


.... this thread just really pissed me off and sadden me. Sorry for ranting.

[Rapscallion]

Yeah, I hate it that people can find so much love so easily, while not easy for me.

Quick hint - the vast majority of people don't find love to be easy. For most, it's nerve-wracking and full of doubt and uncertainty, as well as vulnerability.

I think.

Rapscallion

[Plaidman]

Quick hint - the vast majority of people don't find love to be easy. For most, it's nerve-wracking and full of doubt and uncertainty, as well as vulnerability.

I think.

Rapscallion

Judging from going around town, internet, tv, news, books, customers, it's fairy easy for alot.

Alot just do a giant fart in public, and several people rush towards them to beg them to be dating. Others can capture stars, discover cure for AIDS, Cancer, etc, and people who still just shrug and go off to date someone else.


So maybe some people find it hard, but far more people get it very easy.

[infinitemonkies]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US constitution specifically spell out in which areas state law takes precedence over federal law, and vice-versa?

Either way, I wanted to mention a gay rights activist in California whose name eludes me at the moment. He has started a campaign to demand that in defense of marriage, the state should ban divorce. What greater threat to the sanctity of traditional marriage could there be other than divorce? 52% of voters felt that gay marriage should not be legalized in the state with, IIRC, the highest rates of both divorce and extra-marital affairs.

[smileyeagle1021]

. Being in a polygamous relationship does not mean that one man has that many wives. How silly of me to belive that. Poly is group.

slight nitpick, but technically speaking, polygamy is specifically one man, many women. Polyandry is one woman and many men, and polyamory is a mixed group of multiple men and women (or multiple just men or multiple just women).

[Rapscallion]

So maybe some people find it hard, but far more people get it very easy.

I think we're getting off topic. I might start another. However, there are always going to be people good at one thing or another. I think the vast majority of people find romance to be difficult or baffling.

What will get someone no success whatsoever is negativity.

Rapscallion

[Plaidman]

slight nitpick, but technically speaking, polygamy is specifically one man, many women. Polyandry is one woman and many men, and polyamory is a mixed group of multiple men and women (or multiple just men or multiple just women).

My terminology teacher would kill me if she saw that. Espeaclly since andro is male, gyno is female... Poly is many.

But whatever. You all knew what I meant.... I hope.

I'm on your side smiley.... why ya gotta burn me.


As for the romance dealy: Take alook at CS. Most are married. Several post threads on "Hey, I like this guy, but dating this guy, what do I do?"

Others sprout how many friends they screw on the side and how happy they are.

Others are just plain happy being by themselves.

Others fully admit they've have crap life, but they are also on their second and/or third marriage already.

Still others even complain that their friend who the love, are no longer having anything more then plaontic because she found someone.

Others sprout about their marriages.

So no. I find it difficult to belive, especally here, that everyone finds romance an extremely difficult impossible thing, when so many have so much of it all the time.

[HYHYBT]

I don't see the two questions as having anything to do with each other. "Opposite-sex-only" is specifically a limitation on who you are allowed to marry."No polygamy" really isn't; it's a limit of how many marriages you are allowed to have at the same time.

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, that does put a precedent for banning gay marriage. A legal precedent, which is very different from saying "We did this, we should do this." Its just "We did this, we CAN do this." While hypothetically we CAN, I don't think in any way we SHOULD.

But for me, the only reason I'm against polygamy (meaning multiple person marriages. Er... More than two, that is... I'll just say polygamy because I consider polyamory to mean having a lot of lovers and I'll stop distracting my post now) is because I think the laws would be very, very difficult. I don't see any moral problem, I just see the problem that... Well, for example, what do you do if you have a divorce? Or stuff like that. Complicated, y'see.

[guywithashovel]

I read this column in my city's paper the other day. I find it outrageous that Thomas and his ilk go to such extremes to oppress certain sects of the population and then try to make themselves look like the injured party --- all while claiming to value small government and personal freedom.

I think the irony thermometers are about to burst any moment now.

[smileyeagle1021]

I'm on your side smiley.... why ya gotta burn me.

I'm not trying to burn you, I'm making an observation. While we may know what you meant by polygamy, most people when they hear polygamy immediately envision the 30 child brides to the creepy old guy in southern Utah/ northern Arizona, so unfortunately there is a need to worry about technicalities when talking to those who aren't familiar with anything other than pop-culture

[Plaidman]

I'm not trying to burn you, I'm making an observation. While we may know what you meant by polygamy, most people when they hear polygamy immediately envision the 30 child brides to the creepy old guy in southern Utah/ northern Arizona, so unfortunately there is a need to worry about technicalities when talking to those who aren't familiar with anything other than pop-culture

*cough* Did ya skip my third line....?

[Rageaholic]

I read this column in my city's paper the other day. I find it outrageous that Thomas and his ilk go to such extremes to oppress certain sects of the population and then try to make themselves look like the injured party --- all while claiming to value small government and personal freedom.

I think the irony thermometers are about to burst any moment now.

I just love how that idiot says that the government isn't supposed to create new rights. Instead of trying to improve things to be fair for everyone, he wants things to stay the way they are. By his logic, blacks should still be sitting in the back of the bus. Hell, maybe we should still allow slavery. Such typical ultra conversative BS.