derek bomar wrote:

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Before this goes too far, can a mod split this off? The polygamy discussion has nothing to do with gay marriage in Ohio.

I agree. He's trying to divert it away. It's a pretty weak argument when you have to use hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the point you're arguing.

This is the point I was trying to make, the polygamy argument cant be applied to the topic at hand. Didnt mean for it to turn into a debate of polygamy. Sorry.

jmog wrote:

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Not the possibility of abuse, but the *remarkably high number of examples of it*. I personally don't care much about the issue, but when it is safe to say that the majority of known cases of polygamy in the U.S. were not consensual or with underaged girls, I'd say it's a bit tougher to let that become legal.

Have proof or statistics its "remarkably high number of examples of it"?

Sure. The only widely traceable data on it is that which consists with Mormonism in the U.S., and most recently with the fundamentalist sect, as mainstream Mormons haven't practiced polygamy for quite awhile. Any other examples of it are so few and far between that they may as well be negligible, save for some triad relationships here and there. If the only widely traceable data is that sect from Texas (and wherever else they were), that should be pretty clear-cut. For what it is worth, even in Mormon history, it was the poorest of the poor that practiced polygamy, because they figured it was the only way they could get ahead. If the only significant data that has come up in the past 15 years is that sect, however, that's a pretty damning rate, isn't it?

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: How do we handle divorces with it? Or the tax issues? Or any of the other 1000+ benefits of marriage?...

It's simple. We get rid of all governmental benefits of marriages and get the State out of the marriage business.

A marriage should be between the individuals themselves and it should be based on what a marriage truly means to those respective people.

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:

jmog wrote:

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Not the possibility of abuse, but the *remarkably high number of examples of it*. I personally don't care much about the issue, but when it is safe to say that the majority of known cases of polygamy in the U.S. were not consensual or with underaged girls, I'd say it's a bit tougher to let that become legal.

Have proof or statistics its "remarkably high number of examples of it"?

Sure. The only widely traceable data on it is that which consists with Mormonism in the U.S., and most recently with the fundamentalist sect, as mainstream Mormons haven't practiced polygamy for quite awhile. Any other examples of it are so few and far between that they may as well be negligible, save for some triad relationships here and there. If the only widely traceable data is that sect from Texas (and wherever else they were), that should be pretty clear-cut. For what it is worth, even in Mormon history, it was the poorest of the poor that practiced polygamy, because they figured it was the only way they could get ahead. If the only significant data that has come up in the past 15 years is that sect, however, that's a pretty damning rate, isn't it?

Your statement here said zero about underage girls and only mentioned trying to gain "power" or "money" once.

Which one are you trying to argue? If its the socioeconomic argument against polygamy then thats a political issue, if its the underage statutory rape issue then thats a civil/law issue and can be easily taken care of even in polygamist societies, enforce the laws that require certain ages for marriage consent.

Con_Alma wrote:

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: How do we handle divorces with it? Or the tax issues? Or any of the other 1000+ benefits of marriage?...

It's simple. We get rid of all governmental benefits of marriages and get the State out of the marriage business.

A marriage should be between the individuals themselves and it should be based on what a marriage truly means to those respective people.

Is this part of the tangent or towards the actual topic?

jmog wrote:

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:

jmog wrote:

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Not the possibility of abuse, but the *remarkably high number of examples of it*. I personally don't care much about the issue, but when it is safe to say that the majority of known cases of polygamy in the U.S. were not consensual or with underaged girls, I'd say it's a bit tougher to let that become legal.

Have proof or statistics its "remarkably high number of examples of it"?

Sure. The only widely traceable data on it is that which consists with Mormonism in the U.S., and most recently with the fundamentalist sect, as mainstream Mormons haven't practiced polygamy for quite awhile. Any other examples of it are so few and far between that they may as well be negligible, save for some triad relationships here and there. If the only widely traceable data is that sect from Texas (and wherever else they were), that should be pretty clear-cut. For what it is worth, even in Mormon history, it was the poorest of the poor that practiced polygamy, because they figured it was the only way they could get ahead. If the only significant data that has come up in the past 15 years is that sect, however, that's a pretty damning rate, isn't it?

Your statement here said zero about underage girls and only mentioned trying to gain "power" or "money" once.

Which one are you trying to argue? If its the socioeconomic argument against polygamy then thats a political issue, if its the underage statutory rape issue then thats a civil/law issue and can be easily taken care of even in polygamist societies, enforce the laws that require certain ages for marriage consent.

The sect of fundamentalist Mormons should imply it IRT the underage issue. There were what, nearly 500 cases of it with the sect? That sect is the *only* real data that exists on polygamy in the U.S. that is recent. If we look at more historical data, Mormon men used it as a means to gain power within their communities. If we look at international data where it is legal, it is a status symbol. In *every* example (save a very small region in S. Asia where it is a necessity for survival), women are seen as inferior.

How can one *not* believe that were polygamy to be legalized, it would be a symbol of status as to how many wives a man had? Sorry if I'm a bit of a pessimist, but I have to assume the worst in this case. Besides, what woman would honestly want to be one of many wives? What man would want to be one of many husbands?

Again, can a mod split the polygamy discussion off?

derek bomar wrote:
Marriage is between two people.

Marriage has been defined as being between a man a woman. You want to change the defintion of it to something else, but you criticize people who want to create a definition to something that doesn't agree with what you like. You find the the idea of polygamy to be wrong. Many people find the idea of same-sex couples being married to be wrong too.

I believe that this issue was presented to the citizens of the State of Ohio a few years back, and they voted to have marriage be defined as between a man and a woman. That's it, case closed. If you don't like it... move. I personally have nothing against gays, myself. If you can find love in some dude's hairy ass, more power to you. I don't feel you were born that way it's a choice you made. Don't try and convince me about the joys and pleasures about homosexuality, and I won't tell you my beliefs concerning heterosexuality.

I don't get the "Don't force it on me" argument (no pun.)

I really don't.

I am a heterosexual male, and could go my entire life without having ANYONE'S relationship "forced" on me, if I didn't want it to be. I don't know. Columbus is one of the most GLBT friendly cities in the U.S., but I (somehow!) manage to make it through my days without any homosexuals stopping me to "convince me about the joys and pleasures about homosexuality"....It's rough though. I've got to run to work every morning to dodge them, of course.

Upper90 wrote: I don't get the "Don't force it on me" argument (no pun.)

I really don't.

I am a heterosexual male, and could go my entire life without having ANYONE'S relationship "forced" on me, if I didn't want it to be. I don't know. Columbus is one of the most GLBT friendly cities in the U.S., but I (somehow!) manage to make it through my days without any homosexuals stopping me to "convince me about the joys and pleasures about homosexuality"....It's rough though. I've got to run to work every morning to dodge them, of course.

LMAO - so true

ghosthunter wrote: I believe that this issue was presented to the citizens of the State of Ohio a few years back, and they voted to have marriage be defined as between a man and a woman. That's it, case closed. If you don't like it... move. I personally have nothing against gays, myself. If you can find love in some dude's hairy ass, more power to you. I don't feel you were born that way it's a choice you made. Don't try and convince me about the joys and pleasures about homosexuality, and I won't tell you my beliefs concerning heterosexuality.

So you have no problem letting the civil rights of a minority decided by a vote of the majority?

zhon44622 wrote:

ghosthunter wrote: I believe that this issue was presented to the citizens of the State of Ohio a few years back, and they voted to have marriage be defined as between a man and a woman. That's it, case closed. If you don't like it... move. I personally have nothing against gays, myself. If you can find love in some dude's hairy ass, more power to you. I don't feel you were born that way it's a choice you made. Don't try and convince me about the joys and pleasures about homosexuality, and I won't tell you my beliefs concerning heterosexuality.

So you have no problem letting the civil rights of a minority decided by a vote of the majority?

They have the same civil rights as anyone else. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, and no one can marry someone of the same sex. It is the same for everyone.

So you have no problem letting the civil rights of a minority decided by a vote of the majority?
[/quote]

They have the same civil rights as anyone else. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, and no one can marry someone of the same sex. It is the same for everyone.
[/quote]

Then this makes the civil rights of a man different than that of a woman. Its the same as saying anyone can marry someone of the same race.

zhon44622 wrote: So you have no problem letting the civil rights of a minority decided by a vote of the majority?

They have the same civil rights as anyone else. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, and no one can marry someone of the same sex. It is the same for everyone.
[/quote]

Then this makes the civil rights of a man different than that of a woman. Its the same as saying anyone can marry someone of the same race.
[/quote]

Men and women can both marry people of the opposite sex.

Al Bundy wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: So you have no problem letting the civil rights of a minority decided by a vote of the majority?

They have the same civil rights as anyone else. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, and no one can marry someone of the same sex. It is the same for everyone.

Then this makes the civil rights of a man different than that of a woman. Its the same as saying anyone can marry someone of the same race.
[/quote]

Men and women can both marry people of the opposite sex.
[/quote]

Either completely missed the point or fail to acknowledge it.

zhon44622 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: So you have no problem letting the civil rights of a minority decided by a vote of the majority?

They have the same civil rights as anyone else. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, and no one can marry someone of the same sex. It is the same for everyone.

Then this makes the civil rights of a man different than that of a woman. Its the same as saying anyone can marry someone of the same race.

Men and women can both marry people of the opposite sex.
[/quote]

Either completely missed the point or fail to acknowledge it.
[/quote]

Marriage is defined as being between a man and woman. No one is being denied that right. You want to change the definition of marriage.

And what effect does a "changed definition" of marriage have on a heterosexual couple?

zhon44622 wrote: And what effect does a "changed definition" of marriage have on a heterosexual couple?

I guess it depends what you change the definition to. It was put on the ballot a few years ago, and most people want marriage defined as being between one man one woman. I know that election process can be a pain to deal with things don't go your way.

Al Bundy wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: And what effect does a "changed definition" of marriage have on a heterosexual couple?

I guess it depends what you change the definition to. It was put on the ballot a few years ago, and most people want marriage defined as being between one man one woman. I know that election process can be a pain to deal with things don't go your way.

you know exactly what i mean, change it to two consenting adults. you are arguing in circles but saying nothing.

zhon44622 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: And what effect does a "changed definition" of marriage have on a heterosexual couple?

I guess it depends what you change the definition to. It was put on the ballot a few years ago, and most people want marriage defined as being between one man one woman. I know that election process can be a pain to deal with things don't go your way.

you know exactly what i mean, change it to two consenting adults. you are arguing in circles but saying nothing.

I didn't know exactly what you meant. There are many people in the world with different definitions of marriage. You think it should be two consenting adults. I think it should be one man and one woman. Others think it should be between many people. The fair thing to do was to put it on the ballot to see how the majority of people want to define it. That was done a few years ago. Maybe someday it will be on the ballot again.

Al Bundy wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: And what effect does a "changed definition" of marriage have on a heterosexual couple?

I guess it depends what you change the definition to. It was put on the ballot a few years ago, and most people want marriage defined as being between one man one woman. I know that election process can be a pain to deal with things don't go your way.

you know exactly what i mean, change it to two consenting adults. you are arguing in circles but saying nothing.

I didn't know exactly what you meant. There are many people in the world with different definitions of marriage. You think it should be two consenting adults. I think it should be one man and one woman. Others think it should be between many people. The fair thing to do was to put it on the ballot to see how the majority of people want to define it. That was done a few years ago. Maybe someday it will be on the ballot again.

thus you swing yourself back to the question you avoided by bringing up the definition argument.

Is it fair that the civil rights of a minority are decided by a majority? including but not exclusively in this situation.

zhon44622 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

zhon44622 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: And what effect does a "changed definition" of marriage have on a heterosexual couple?

I guess it depends what you change the definition to. It was put on the ballot a few years ago, and most people want marriage defined as being between one man one woman. I know that election process can be a pain to deal with things don't go your way.

you know exactly what i mean, change it to two consenting adults. you are arguing in circles but saying nothing.

I didn't know exactly what you meant. There are many people in the world with different definitions of marriage. You think it should be two consenting adults. I think it should be one man and one woman. Others think it should be between many people. The fair thing to do was to put it on the ballot to see how the majority of people want to define it. That was done a few years ago. Maybe someday it will be on the ballot again.

thus you swing yourself back to the question you avoided by bringing up the definition argument.

Is it fair that the civil rights of a minority are decided by a majority? including but not exclusively in this situation.

If rights are denied it is wrong, but no right is being denied here. Everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. You disagree with the current definition of marriage, so you try to make up an excuse that rights are being denied. No right is being denied.

Why would anyone be restricted to be married if there is no certainty of what marriage is?

Get the State out of the process. There's no reason for them to be involved. Society will drtermine what's right and wrong.

I think gays should have the right to marry one another without question in civil ceremony. These are not (or should not be) religiously influenced ceremonies. However, I think that religious officiants have the right to refuse based on their views. I equate this with an orthodox rabbi refusing to marry an interfaith couple. Nobody should have to go against his/her convictions to perform a marriage. But if two gay people want to go down to city hall and tie the knot, I see no issue with that.

The whole gay marriage thing got me thinking though. How long before co-habitating straight couples start asking for the same rights as married folks?

Websurfinbird wrote:

The whole gay marriage thing got me thinking though. How long before co-habitating straight couples start asking for the same rights as married folks?

Interesting question...

In "common law" states this already exists, if you meat common law "rules" you have similar rights as married couples the way I understand it (the huddle lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong).

The list of "common law" states are...

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

Like in common law states a couple can file joint tax returns, can include each other in their employee benefits (medical, etc), and the rules/laws on what constitutes a "common law" marriage might vary for each state.