Real science brought us things like asbestos and CFCs. Real science has brought us conflicting nutritional guidelines. Real science had us fearing global cooling, then global warming, then global undefined change. It shouldn't be surprising that the average layperson is going to be skeptical of the latest batch of scientific facts. A honest scientist should also be skeptical, science requires a bit of skepticism and the ability to challenge its own accepted facts. At the same time, there is a need for everyone to be vaccinated against certain diseases, for example. The sad part is that we have to mandate it. Science isn't trusted, government certainly isn't trusted, and here we are. It's the ever-present conflict of liberty versus safety.
Well of course. OCP built New Detroit over the ruins of what had been Detroit.
Isn't that kind of the point of living in a free country? We're all entitled to our own beliefs. Why is it "alarming" or "even worse" that one group doesn't agree with another on a particular topic?
In this story, which group of people were pulling drivers out of cars and beating them, damaging those cars, holding passengers hostage in the terminals, and lighting tire fires trying to block the entrances to the airport? The parent has a point. They do disrupt commerce and trade. The unions have now taken on the role of mercenary instead of the companies. I don't blame customers for not wanting to get into those vehicles, and prefer something like Uber instead. Do you want to get into a car with your family with a violent lunatic behind the wheel? I don't even like what Uber is doing, but this incident is insane. You challenge stuff like this in the courts, you don't take the law into your own hands and go vigilante like that.
"Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that. As of yet, you've simply ignored it."
I addressed that already, as have others. Inheritance, child custody, hospital visitation, all of that, all of your "substantive" issues can be addressed in a manner not unlike what is done for couples. We could have group tax filings. It's just more names on the forms and more W2s and/or 1099s. Estates can be split as with children when there are no surviving parents. Etc. Those are implementation details, those are not justifications for continued discrimination. That's like saying, well.. a lot of forms already have Mr and Mrs on them and we'd have to change them, or child custody in many/most states favor the female/mother.. so it's just not the same thing as marriage. Don't you understand that?
"No, you used the term bigot because you're projecting."
Projecting what? I'm suggesting that we treat all groups the same. That's the opposite of bigotry. What the hell?
"1. You are against gay marriage. Evidence for this is you saying my statement that gay marriage is marriage 'is wrong'."
Out of context. My point was that if that were the consensus, there wouldn't have been any issue for the court to consider. Clearly there was. You can't just say "x is marriage" and use that as a persuasive reason why it should be so. As I stated in that context, I can also say "poly is marriage" but you'd refute that apparently. The argument I'm making is that discrimination continues, I'm not arguing against the court decision.
"2. You think that the arguments against gay marriage and polygamy are identical. Evidence for this is the fact that you've been arguing they're identical."
The justification that traditionalists were using, yes.
"3. You think that I am against polygamy."
No. I think you're against acknowledging that poly marriage is as much marriage and as deserving of the right to be recognized as marriage as the way that hetero or gay couples are considered married.
"4. You think you can catch me being hypocritical because I'm against polygamy, but not against gay marriage, and the arguments are the same."
Against poly marriage, yes.
"It's like you got your talking points from Rush Limbaugh."
I don't listen to his show, but I'm pretty sure he's not in favor of anything except traditional man and woman marriage. Are you not paying attention? I'm calling out the fact that while gays can now marry, the law still discriminates. Why do you keep ignoring that?
"Large groups and couples are not similarly situated. The number of people in a group directly affects its ability to contribute to or participate in society. Large numbers of people have more votes than small numbers. They consume more resources. They can be in more places at once. "
Wow! Polygamists don't contribute to society the same way that a couple can? That's pretty much hate speech right there. They're people, just like anyone else. I can't imagine what's going through your mind to come up with that gem. Again, that sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric against gay marriage. Two guys could never raise a family, therefore they're not contributing to society the same way. That's my beef against your "logic". It's bigoted. There's no way you can justify making a statement like that.
"They consume more resources."
Actually, it's probably the other way around. Let's say it's a group of four. Those married four are likely to live in the same dwelling whereas two married pairs are almost certainly going to be in two separate dwellings. Again, I can't imagine what you're thinking.
"They can be in more places at once."
Are they cloning themselves?
You've got something going on, but it's not logic.
"The comparison you're trying (and failing) to make is that people were denying gay marriage because, as they said, "gay marriage" is not a fundamental right and not in our traditions, as if it was something different. It is not: gay marriage is marriage."
There it is finally. That's the point of contention. The last sentence is wrong. If it were true, then there never would have been any argument to the contrary. I can make the exact same statement: poly marriage is marriage. It's not just Mormons. How many married people end up cheating on their spouses? It's not always just a fling. How many have "open marriages"? How many have had multiple marriages in different locations simultaneously? Poly may not be done in the open all that often, but there are certainly many partnered adults out there with multiple partners. They have to be secretive because society doesn't want to talk about them or acknowledge that they exist. "In the closet."
I used the term bigot because I don't know how else to explain your position on this. You seem to have a very strong desire to separate one type of arrangement from another, not unlike the traditional marriage folks insisting that gay marriage is something separate. If they're called bigots for that, then I think what you're trying to do with your "logic" is the same exact thing. People establish relationships. It can't be confined to a race, we've been there. It can no longer be confined to specific genders, we're there now. Why on Earth would we limit it to a specific number of individuals? Tribalism has existed for a very long time.
You say you haven't said anything against polygamy but you won't acknowledge that it's the same thing. It is no less a fundamental right. Race isn't, gender isn't, count shouldn't be either going by the same logic. I don't know how you can rationalize your stance to yourself, it doesn't make sense. All the naysayers said that race or gender or what-have-you was not the same institution. It's the same argument.
"Note that you can't actually quote me ever saying that."
That's my summary of your opinion. Gays can marry because it's easy and we don't have to change much of the law. Polys and singles and any other arrangement can continue to be discriminated against because it'd be too difficult to afford them the same rights as others. Is that not your opinion? I'm not hearing voices, I'm reading your comments. Please clarify if I missed something.
"You can't very well refute it if you have no idea what you're arguing about."
Probably because you're as much of a bigot as the traditionalists are accused of being and you refuse to acknowledge it.
I saw this in another of your comments:
"Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions or collective conscience, and therefore is not a fundamental right."
Do you realize how many times traditional marriage proponents used that exact same justification? Traditional marriage. Tradition. "Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions". By that quote, you would refuse gay marriage because it was not a tradition nor was it ever a significant part of our "collective conscience". Your reasoning here is absurd!
You're still arguing convenience over rights. You really want to go with the defense of "it would be too much work"? Throw that argument out the window, it's irrelevant. Does marriage after this court decision still discriminate? Based on the reasoning laid out for this decision, yes, it absolutely does.
"Seriously, do you even understand why courts and laws exist and we don't just have everything based on "whatever criteria a judge wants."
First, there is a thing called "legislating from the bench". It's real. It happens.
Second, when it comes to child custody, there are numerous variables in play and often no clear-cut solution as defined by law. The judge does have a lot of say in the final outcome. Any ruling by a judge is always based on that judge's interpretation of the relevant laws, and no two judges will always come to the same conclusion. Beyond that, one judge may put more weight into financials while another may put more weight into family ties or other metrics. Family law is a mine field.
Back to my point though, all the court did was bring in some of the groups that were being discriminated against, yet marriage still discriminates. Yes, absolutely, it may be a more difficult thing to correct than gay marriage (difficult to say because even that took a hell of a long time), but this problem still has not been resolved. It's a partial victory, at best.
3>2 was addressed well by another user, but it's a classification not unlike "one man and one woman". Your equal protection argument breaks down because "one man and one woman" always held true for every adult, whether man or woman. No matter your gender, you could always marry one adult of the opposite gender. I know a lot of people detest that analysis, but it was true. Just like for polys and singles today, that wasn't acceptable, but that's how it was.
I fully agree with you. I think in the end, we will see the government withdraw from being involved in people's lives this way. Divorce proceedings and other legal entanglements are burdening the courts and even traditional marriage is starting to fail as a usable construct. "Until death do you part" is becoming a case of false advertising more often than not. There's a much larger dialog to be had on this topic.
"That's not true for gay marriage, where literally nothing but the label on a line on a form changes."
Nothing but a label.
"The side of law and logic?"
So.. you supported the Defense of Marriage act? Because that was law. Right?
What you're basically saying is that convenience is more important than civil rights. Gay marriage was "easy" to do, so it gets implemented. Poly or single is not, therefore they get nothing, and it's okay to continue discriminating against them.
Taxes? You file as a group, just like a couple does. Inheritance? You divide the assets, same as when the last parent dies and the estate is divided equally or as laid out in the will. Children? Again, as laid out in the will or the court decides based on whatever criteria they wish to use, or ideally the surviving adults come to agreement.
Step back and really think about your comments. You are the new traditionalist. You really are. You're reaching for justification to continue denying something to a smaller portion of the population.
You are as obsessed with the number two as traditionalists were with the words man and woman. Can't you see that?
Marriage is not exclusively about property and inheritance. I can sign a property deed along with someone I'm not married to and I can do the same in my will for inheritance. Man and woman, only two, it's the same type of argument.
"Draft that law, and then you can have polygamy. Until then, not yours."
Exactly what the LGBT crowd was always told until the courts said no. How does it feel to be on the other side?
Oil and metal, but the point stands. We weren't at war with them, we weren't treating them as an enemy. Yet if we had been spying or had better spies, we might have known of their plans to attack and could have prepared for it. That's why powerful nations all spy on each other. Outward appearance can be very deceiving.
How is that any different? We've moved away from biological reproduction and/or religion as a basis for the definition of marriage, so surely any combination must now be accepted, right? Single people shouldn't be left out, told they can't have what others have. Polys as well.
The interesting thing here is that the LGBT crowd now joins traditionalists as being the new majority on this issue and will continue to discriminate against singles and polys just as was done to LGBT for so long. The new minority group doesn't have sufficient numbers to make enough noise for anyone to think they matter and everyone turns a blind eye. Sound familiar?
Explain the continued ban on polygamous marriage.