Google "Santorum"

[msj]

Now see, being that she's so very lovely, I was thinking surely she could find a suitable man for both of you.

Oh, she would love to. But I don't want to stuck in the middle with him.

[Black Dog]

Nope. It's you and others that have deemed marriage to be something different than it used to be.

Nope, marriage stayed the same. All that was changed was who was allowed to be considered married.

[dre]

Nope. It's you and others that have deemed marriage to be something different than it used to be. Laws were changed. So I'm asking the proponents of the changed definition of marriage, why marriage can't be changed further? If, as I'm told, that two people loving each other, no matter what sex, should be recognized as married, then why not 3 people that love each other? What's the logic denying them that right? On what basis?

Your question is ignorant of how laws evolve and change over time.

We arent looking at legally recognizing gay marriage because someone thinks its logical. We are looking at it because a fairly large group of society has been fighting to be accepted by their peers for decades, and they have managed to get a lot of people to change the way they view gays and gay partnerships. Same goes for inter-racial marriages. The law didnt change because anyone decided it was a logical thing to do. It changed because the civil rights movement fought for black people to became accepted social as equals.

The law is just a snapshot of societies views on things at a given time. If there was a powerfull polygamous rights movement that was able to change societies views over time, then eventually the law would follow, but until then all these questions are completely beside the point.

Nope. It's you and others that have deemed marriage to be something different than it used to be.

Yeah I explained that above. Laws around marriage and anything else for that matter change as the views of society change.

At one point marriage was controlled by parents to strategic further the interests of the family... at another time it meant that a white person couldnt marry black people. It will get "redefined" as society sees fit just like everything else does.

Edited February 2, 2012 by dre

[msj]

Your question is ignorant of how laws evolve and change over time.

We arent looking at legally recognizing gay marriage because someone thinks its logical. We are looking at it because a fairly large group of society has been fighting to be accepted by their peers for decades, and they have managed to get a lot of people to change the way they view gays and gay partnerships. Same goes for inter-racial marriages. The law didnt change because anyone decided it was a logical thing to do. It changed because the civil rights movement fought for black people to became accepted social as equals.

The law is just a snapshot of societies views on things at a given time. If there was a powerfull polygamous rights movement that was able to change societies views over time, then eventually the law would follow, but until then all these questions are completely beside the point.

To a large extent I agree with you, however, if there was no logical basis to allow same gender marriages (or interracial marriages) then I don't think we would have a large group of people fighting for it.

Polygamous rights movements can try and maybe they will succeed. But the logic is not the same and they will have a harder time convincing a large enough segment of society to accept that they deserve extra tax credits/pension benefits based on multiple legal spouses.

[LonJowett]

Nope. It's you and others that have deemed marriage to be something different than it used to be. Laws were changed.

I know you have a habit of avoiding any question that you find difficult to answer, but in the U.S. in the 20th century, mixed-race marriages were predominantly illegal. Do you feel the same way about that change in the legal definition of marriage, or have you decided in that case it was okay?

[dre]

To a large extent I agree with you, however, if there was no logical basis to allow same gender marriages (or interracial marriages) then I don't think we would have a large group of people fighting for it.

Polygamous rights movements can try and maybe they will succeed. But the logic is not the same and they will have a harder time convincing a large enough segment of society to accept that they deserve extra tax credits/pension benefits based on multiple legal spouses.

I agree polygamists face an uphill battle, but its not because of logic. They are swimming against the currents of prevailing social morality, and that morality often has nothing to do with logic. I personally find that most of the people against polygamy, dont really mind the concept of three concenting adults living together as a family... they are more concerned with the practical implications and the fact this arrangement seems to foster child abuse and spousal abuse.

Anyhow youre certainly right that they have a much bigger hill to climb.

My argument was more that the whole idea of "logic" as a driver of civil rights is flawed.

Edited February 2, 2012 by dre

[Shady]

I apologize for the thread drift, it's defintely my fault.

[LonJowett]

I apologize for the thread drift, it's defintely my fault.

Excellent way to avoid a question you find difficult to answer though.

[Shady]

I know you have a habit of avoiding any question that you find difficult to answer, but in the U.S. in the 20th century, mixed-race marriages were predominantly illegal. Do you feel the same way about that change in the legal definition of marriage, or have you decided in that case it was okay?

You're wrong, because the definition wasn't changed.

[LonJowett]

You're wrong, because the definition wasn't changed.

Of course it was. The definition was a man and a woman of the same race. The Supreme Court struck that law down in 1967.

[Shady]

Of course it was. The definition was a man and a woman of the same race. The Supreme Court struck that law down in 1967.

Which law are you referring to?

[LonJowett]

Which law are you referring to?

Sorry. I thought you knew. The various anti-miscegenation laws that restricted the legal definition of marriage on racial grounds.

[Shady]

Sorry. I thought you knew. The various anti-miscegenation laws that restricted the legal definition of marriage on racial grounds.

Yes, some states had these laws. The Supreme Court ruled that racial classification has not baring on marriage. What's your point?

[LonJowett]

The Supreme Court ruled that racial classification has not baring on marriage. What's your point?

That the court has changed the legal definition of marriage in the past and you aren't making comparisons to polygamy because of that change.

[Shady]

That the court has changed the legal definition of marriage in the past and you aren't making comparisons to polygamy because of that change.

Well, first, the courts don't make law. They interpret law, and they're an equal branch of government, not above them.

And second, so you're saying that because the definition has been changed, in some states, regarding race, and now more recently regarding sex, that no further changes can be made? Why not? On what basis?

[LonJowett]

And second, so you're saying that because the definition has been changed, in some states, regarding race, and now more recently regarding sex, that no further changes can be made? Why not? On what basis?

Nope. If our society decides it wants polygamy to be included in the definition of marriage, it's absolutely free to do so. If enough people like you continue to fight for it, I'm sure if Romney gets in you've a chance of achieving your goal.

[sharkman]

Perhaps you should find out what he actually said before you tap-tap-tap out words and opinions about what he said.

I did and provided a quote. Have you got anything else?

[jbg]

I wonder if tomorrow, when I go to a hospital, if I should inquire if "santorum" is actually a medical term?

[Shady]

I wonder if tomorrow, when I go to a hospital, if I should inquire if "santorum" is actually a medical term?

They won't know what you're talking about. Unless your doctor is bat-shit crazy!

[kimmy]

If I was allowed to have 3 spouses then I would keep my existing wife (who is very lovely) and marry another woman much younger than myself.

We call that kind of a dealy a "gingrich".

-k

[msj]

We call that kind of a dealy a "gingrich".

-k

I'm waiting for my wife to get sick before I make my move.

I have family values!

[Shady]

What man wouldn't wanna marry a younger woman? It's only human nature. Just like gay sex right? You guys should be more open-mined!

[msj]

What man wouldn't wanna marry a younger woman? It's only human nature. Just like gay sex right? You guys should be more open-mined!

Huh? Where have we not been open minded?

And, yes, gay sex is natural but it doesn't mean that everyone is going to do it because some of us don't really have that kind of preference.

[LonJowett]

Huh? Where have we not been open minded?

He realized he lost the polygamy equation debate, so now he's just getting desperate.

[Yukon Jack]

do tell. what do ted haggard and larry craig say?

What Ted Haggard and Larry Craig says does not matter. Ask the person whose opinion DOES matter, the lover of brown sausages, Barney Frank.

Or more locally, Scott Bryson or Svend Robinson.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Yukon Jack