I think everyone (gay and straight couples) should have civil unions for legal purposes because marriage means different things to different people. Who agrees or disagrees with me?

I think it would be great if civil unions were the legal way to do things. Religious folks can totally have “marriage” back since it means so much to them.

I think if you do a search on Fluther for “gay marriage”, you’ll get a pretty good sampling of the opinion of others here.

laureth: “religious folks”?

@bythebay: Most of the time when I hear that “marriage” must be defended, it seems to be coming from religious folks of various stripes. Since there is both a religious and a civil meaning to two people choosing to unite, perhaps there should be two ways to unite: a civil union, if you want the legal benefits of marriage (like being able to inherit, see your sweetie in the hospital, etc.), and marriage, if you want the religious benefits (whatever those are for you). Or you could have both, if you want to cover all your bases.

“Religious folks can totally have “marriage” back since it means so much to them.” That’s painting with a pretty broad brush, laureth. I don’t think most people marry with a formal ceremony of their faith to “cover their bases”.

@bythebay: What do you mean “cover their bases”?

critter, I was referencing the last line in laureths response.

@bythebay: Well, it’s not just Christians who have marriage ceremonies. Jews, Muslims, Hindus – all of them have some sort of religious ceremony for joining two people in wedlock. This is why I say “religious folks,” rather than singling out any one of them. And what marriage means to each of those religions may be slightly different. I say, let “marriage” be the religious joining of two (or however many, I don’t care) people, and let the various churches, temples, etc., be the ones to decide who they will and will not unite. That way, if they have any objections to any people getting married, they can totally refuse to marry them and that would be just fine.

I understand your points, however, your original delivery left a lot to the imagination.

How so?

I believe that there should be an absolute distinction between a religious ceremony/sacremnt/blessing and the legality of a marriage. In many other countries these two actions are not considered synonomous as they are here in the US. Again, I’m not debating the civil right or liberty of two people to marry…I found your statement to be overtly critical of those who choose to aknowledge their religious beliefs.

I’m not critical of people who choose to acknowledge religious beliefs, at least in this context. However, I cannot deny that every argument I hear in favor of denying marriage/unions to gay people is Biblically based, or espoused by people whose belief that they should not marry is drawn from their religious beliefs. As a famous religious figure once said, “Render onto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” If one’s religion frowns on the union of gay people, then that church shouldn’t have to smile upon it. If that sounds overly critical of religious viewpoints, well, I’m guilty as charged.

@beccabunny: I would absolutely agree with you. I personally take issues with homosexual marriage, but based on some recent self reflection I have somewhat changed my attitude about homosexual marriage. Even though I take issue with the act of homosexual marriage I find it difficult to see how and why our government should be meddling in these peoples personal lives strictly based on a religious perspective.

Some will state that their are studies which show certain negative implications of homosexual marriage and homosexuality but for every one of those studies there are studies which show the exact opposite.

I also take issue with a government that won’t allow homosexuality but will allow so many other negative theological perspectives which in my opinion impact the sanctity of marriage moreso than two gay people. For example sex before marriage is a big slap in the face for those religious right people who state that homosexual marriage is damaging the sanctity of marriage. The incredible ease of obtaining a divorce in this country is another slap in the face.

I have come to grips with what I feel our government should and should not control and allow. Our government is there to protect it’s citizens period, not define morality. Homosexual marriage even though in my opinion immoral, does not hurt other citizens.

I am a born again Christian and there are typically not too many of us who feel this way. With the passing of prop 8, mainly caused by the religious right, not only Christians like myself but 70% of African Americans backed the proposition, jewish groups backed it, along with other religious groups. With the passing of this proposition I feel that the Christian church needs to consider the fact that not allowing non-Christian or non-religious people a right that they should have in a free America, through a government sponsored regulation, will only hurt the Church in the long run, and here is why.

Christians have always been considered judgmental. This is the number 1 issue non-Christians have with Christians, and a big reason many won’t even consider the faith. For supposed Christians to have a 27% divorce rate and from what I’ve read a >50% sex before marriage rate, and then condemn homosexuality will only drive more and more people into believing that all Christians are hypocritical and judgmental. The Christian church and other religious churches for that matter need not use government sponsored regulations and laws to further their faith based societies. The government does not exist to define psychological morality for its citizens.

Wow, Critter, you said a mouthful. And I’m lurving you up for it! In another discussion I’ve had on Fluther today, I mentioned that I wished that the sincere, decent Christians would come forward, so that more people would see them and not think that all Christians are obnoxious. With that post, you seem like one of the good ones.

And I am saying this as the daughter of a lesbian mother. My mom can’t marry her sweetheart, at least not legally. Thank you for at least thinking about it, even if you have moral problems with people like my mother. I appreciate that.

critter, you do a very good job of expressing your views. We can’t all agree but it’s so beneficial when we can be respectful and hear each other out. lurve to you for being confident enough to share your views.

So, tell me, is a Wicca Binding, anything like Marriage? To most Pagans a Binding is so, so much more then a simple marriage. I have never considered a marriage (even before I completely accepted my homosexuality), but a Binding, I have since I was 11.
For the purpose of ease, I’ll summarize a Binding:
A true Binding involves no one else but you, your significant other (it has always been stated as that, or “soulmate”) the High Priestess, and the High Priest, and one of your family’s generations to accompany each person (as in your parents, or you sibling, or you grand parents, or any one generation from each persons family). There is a small ritual, with some poetry, or writing, then the two individuals that are to be bound to each other, once again, for the rest of eternity, have an option to speak their love for each other, then they are joined by two bracelets, like wedding rings.

According to Colorado Law, I am not even allowed to have that ceremony, as it is not recognized as a “Civil Act of Cilvil Union.”

It all comes down to a bunch of bigots that fear homosexuality for one, reason or another, wanting a way to discriminate against us. So rather then putting up burning crosses, they tell us we can not benefit legally from our love, as “normal” people can. Those who fear us don’t want us to have the benefits of the legality of marriage because it is the closest thing the bigots can get to actually lynching us in the streets…

Marriage, according to the USA (The legal part that is still separate from the Church [if such a thing still exists, {unlikely}]) is nothing more then going to the DMV, paying a fee, and signing a document stating your significant other is now part of you family, gaining all the benefits of such a title, (i.e. they can see you in the hospital, and if you die, they get your stuff, etc…)

So, to answer you question: I say let people call it whatever they want, just let us sign that damn document! I don’t care about no damn church, I am going to have a binding, in the woods, in the mountains, far from any church, temple or any other form of religious structure! (If I ever find my soulmate, and not screw it up, as I have feared I have in the past already.)

The term marriage has been defined and redefined so many times. Whichever way this goes I think there’s going to be a new definition.

@El(I)umas:
Agreed. Any proposition that gets past, should be immediately over thrown by the Supreme Court, plane and simple: They are unconstitutional.

A lot of people have civil ceremonies that are recognized as marriage in the law-we had to get marriage licenses, didn’t we?

42 years ago, we drove up to Reno picked up a license, went upstairs and got married by a civil official and spent the afternoon in the casino. We went nowhere near a church or a minister and nobody ever questioned our marriage.

Under the 1st amendment, the government cannot force a church to participate in a wedding but likewise religions cannot dictate the terms of a legal marriage. galileogirl to organized religions-butt out or start paying taxes.

AGREED! They are all civil unions. Leave the marriage thing to be decided by each individual group or church. It is just a means of simplifying inheritance and other legal matters.

I proposed this very idea in an earlier question, as a logical way to settle this problem. However, some of our gay members do not want it to be separated into civil union = legal / marriage = religious. Since I am straight, I defer to thier wishes on this matter. Whatever the outcome, they ought to be able to do it as quickly as possible!

@Critter: I am so impressed! It seems you have given this issue some additional thought since we last discussed it.

@jtvoar16: I have never heard of a Wiccan “binding” like you describe, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Wiccans are a fractious bunch, and so many of them just do ceremonies as it seems right to them at the time. Sometime, somewhere, that ceremony probably happened.

Most of the time, though, I heard them called “handfastings,” and yes, that’s a marriage/union ceremony. If performed by certified clergy, it is as civilly legally binding as any other marriage, if the participants want it to be.

Ironically, since my mom is gay, she can get religiously married by any tradition that will perform the rite for them (like Wiccans might), but it is not civilly binding. How weird is that, since what she really wants are the civil rights and responsibilities of marriage, and could care less about the contract between her, her sweetie, and Deity.

@Augustlan: You say, “However, some of our gay members do not want it to be separated into civil union = legal / marriage = religious. Since I am straight, I defer to thier wishes on this matter.”

It’s awesome that you would defer to the wishes of the gay community, however, if Marriage as-we-know-it is split into Civil and Religious aspects, it would affect everyone who is married, or wants to marry someday. (For instance, my husband and I would have a civil union, since we did it legally, but I’m not sure our union would be considered “marriage” by most Christians.) As such, it behooves us to consider the opinions of everyone, gay, straight, religious or not.

@laureth: Point taken. I never really thought about how other straight people would feel about it! I’d just like for the gay community to have it the way they want it, and not to feel like it’s a compromise position. That said, I personally think it’s a great idea, and would be all for it.

Awesome discussion everybody. Thanks for all the Lurve since I’m new to the collective. As for me – I happen to have a very narrow definition of marriage (and don’t expect or demand that others agree with me) – I believe that marriage is a sacrament – a mechanism for Grace to enter my life (and my husband’s) and is meant to facilitate and enhance my journey towards an eternal life with the Creator. However, I also believe that love and tolerance are important values to hold fast to. And yes – people should be able to at least have the peace of mind in knowing that if their loved one gets sick they will have the right to be next to their bedside in the ICU – or if they work hard to buy some property of value their interest in it will be protected by law.

I think that a civial union should be allowed for same gender relationships, but that the word marriage should be kept as a male to female relationship. They both provide the same security and benefits (such as medical benefit coverage etc). Just my opinion

Two people who love each other, and are of legal age, should have the right to be together in MARRIAGE. To give different names to the same union is only going to promote the whole “We are better than you because (insert name of your god here) says so!”. There is way too much religion in our government. Religion is a private belief, no one can prove if a god does or does not exist. I respect the fact that everyone can believe as they choose. Any law based on a moral issue for the church is wrong. Our money shouldnt say “In God We Trust”. Not all americans believe in a god. Gay people have as much right to marriage as straight people.

@eligah: Any 2 people of legal age that consider themselves in love should be allowed to get married?

Why does it have to only be 2 people? Original forms of marriage consisted of loosely organized groups of many people. Why do you stop at 2 people if your basis for acceptable marriage is persons of legal age that love each other? Not trying to start a fight, I’m just curious?

“Any law based on a moral issue for the church is wrong”?
It is not only based on the church. Proposition 8 was voted on by both religious and non-religious people.

“Our money shouldn’t say “In God We Trust””.
That is the US motto. The US has many laws derived from many religious teachings.

Do you not agree with the government accepting all unions as simply that (civil unions) and not marriages?

@critter- I don’t care how many people get married- 2, 3, 6, whatever. I don’t have a problem with polygamy as long as it isn’t underage children. That’s part of their religion.
Prop 8 was voted on by both types of people, you are correct. But the majority isn’t always correct. Remember when most people thought the earth was flat?
Like I said (and as I go back and read my own post I wasn’t exacty clear) I don’t care what you call it- civil union, marriage, whatever!! I just don’t want anyone to be able to say that one is better than the other in “gods” eyes.
As to the money- god is religion, money is govt, they shouldn’t be combined. It’s disrespectful. Just because it’s tradition doesn’t make it right.
My basic point is laws should be made with common sense and fairness, not based on any religion.

@elijahsuicide:
Thanks, I understand your viewpoint a bit better now.

You stated that God is religion, but I don’t necessarily agree with you on that. Obviously for those that have a religion, they believe in a God, and each particular God encompassing different things. The word God can mean MANY things not all encompassing a religion. God, in general, (at least in my pre-Christian belief) was all encompassing. God was a lack of boundaries, and therefore could be described as infinity. God in my definition was ourself which itself is the Very self. God is everything. So in my opinion God did not only encompass religion but religion encompassed God. God is not only a religion.

I agree with you though, laws should be made with common sense and fairness (for the most part) and not based on any particular religion.

Disagree.

You want to get married? You get your friends together and make a vow with your partner..
You want to have the same last names, fill out the paperwork and change your last name.
You want to leave your possessions to your partner. Make a will.
I did not get married for tax purpose, I got married because I loved someone. Did not need a priest, and did not need to notify the IRS. But was influenced by what others thought was right.
So mom wanted a wedding, and had to prove our marriage was “real” by signing a license. All it is about is being along side the person you love.
But, when that day came and it ended. For some it does, no matter how positive your intentions were. What a pain in the ass it was filing for divorce. Cost just as much as the amount of taxes we got back over the years.

As long as the Same Sex and the Different Sex ceremony is just as legal / binding ; I wouldn’t care what they called it…

I always thought it was only Legal o.o And people just chose to have them in a church. LOL im so young X__X
But yeah, it should just be a LEGAL thing not RELIGIOUS. Some people aren’t religious, so where do we have it? XD

I think agreements like this between two people are personal, private, and none of the government’s business. The government should not have it’s greasy fingers in the marriage business. If you want to get married, fine, but it should not be recognized in the court of law. It should not be a legal matter. We should not give people tax breaks because they are married. Marriage is tied to religion and we are supposed to uphold separation of church and state. If you want to fuck a man or a woman or two men or two women or some other combination thereof, I don’t care and neither should my tax dollars.

The thing, though, is that marriage is a contract. And contracts have been legal things for as long as there have been contracts – even back in ancient times, marriage was a legal, contractual thing. If you want “marriage” to be a religious thing only – and hey, I can agree with you – there will need to be some kind of legal contract like a civil union.

It is this civil union that I support for straight folks as well as gay folks. The churches can marry whoever they want – and so can the Pagans, for that matter – but it’s a different matter altogether from legal ties.

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. Ignore the former and concentrate on the latter Well, that is very telling: critter1982 “Why do you stop at 2 people if your basis for acceptable marriage is persons of legal age that love each other? With all the arguments about legal union, religious union, marriage, something else most even many of the Gay community never bring that up. Polygamy stirs up all kinds of ill feelings and erroneous ideas when in fact it was probably the more dominate form of marriage over time in most of the world.

Being Christian I don’t favor Gay marriages or polygamy, but those who wish to do that or be that I leave that up to them and God—for those who believe, those who don’t, their own devices—- but I know God loves Gays as much as he loves gambler, fornicator, adulterers, child molesters, hit men, dope fiends, etc. God may hate the sin we do, He don’t hate anyone, same as you may hate that your son stole a bike, you don’t hate your son you just hate his stealing.

I in respect to Prop 8, I found myself hard to support it more because if we are going to sweep the pieces from the chess board and start a new game ALL the players should be able to sit at the table if it is all about people who love each other being able to form a legal union under the banner of marriage plural marriages, and those who care to couple with close relatives were conspicuously absent from the party. Why didn’t Gays want to bring them along for their right to marry as they want seeing Gays had more clout and organization, why seem selfish?

If it is all about having rights to decide health matter or leave property etc does it really matter if it is a civil union as oppose to marriage? I can live with civil unions just don’t exclude polygamist if you want me to swallow it easy.

You see, though, it’s not “clearing the chess board.” It’s about allowing two people who love each other to marry, for all the same reasons that the Lovings wanted to be able to marry each other in 1967. (I bring this up because I assume someone with your icon, @Hypocrisy_Central, would be sympathetic.) Please notice that Mildred and Richard Loving were also considered to be a threat to marriage in their time, but they weren’t a gateway case for polygamy. In fact, they didn’t bring group marriage to the table at all, but I’m sure their detractors did.

@laureth If one takes the OP “I think everyone (gay and straight couples) should have civil unions for legal purposes because marriage means different things to different people” that because marriage had a different meaning to so many that to settle the debate or confusion every one (Gay and straight) as it was said would be under that umbrella. Couple that with singular man and woman marriages is the established norm in this nation, to make major changes to that established order is to de facto redo it. When this debate comes up I am pointing out why not plural marriages? If it is ti be a pure state sanctioned union apart from the church then there is no moral issue why those who practice polygamy can’t have their legal unions (however you would call it) the same as Gays and straights. Can you?

@Hypocrisy_Central – so to you, it’s either “just 1M1W” or we have to open the barn doors and don’t limit it at all? Wow.

Personally, I don’t care if people want to marry more than one. It doesn’t work for my relationship, but I do have friends who are poly. That said, this debate isn’t really about “how many,” it’s about “who.”

Most of the detractors of gay marriage that I’ve ever seen bring up the “if we let the gays marry, we’ll have to let parents marry kids, cats marry dogs, etc.” argument also throw group marriage in there to freak folks out. It’s a common talking-point and slippery-slope argument meant to show that if we let blacks and whites gay people marry, we’ll just be going to hell in a handbasket. However, it just doesn’t happen that way. And it looks very much like you’re clouding the issue in the same manner as the people I’m describing.

It is here that I note that society changes best in small steps. It used to be that only white male property owners could vote, and then they allowed the landless, and then the black men, and then the women, and then the 18 year olds. One step at a time. And while I’m not opposed to my poly-triad friends marrying each other, I don’t think this is their step yet. If we had gone from just white male property owners to just anyone voting, society would have freaked out, y’know? Just the same way people freak out when people pull out the “cats and dogs, people and armchairs, paedophile, group marriage” talking points.

@laureth If O have to stand on a completely sectarian platform with no religious authority how can I not? There would be no reason not to allow 2 people who feel they are in love to marry the person they are in love with? You can’t regulate fairness if you truly intend to be fair.

“Most of the detractors of gay marriage that I’ve ever seen bring up the “if we let the gays marry, we’ll have to let parents marry kids, cats marry dogs, etc.” argument also throw group marriage in there to freak folks out.” Well on a complete secular dogma there would be no violation of a man marrying his mother if both were of legal age or a woman her brother or uncle, they would just be people marrying the one they loved. Going down to animals, that is a stretch because animals do not have the sentience of humans, they would not even know they were married or what the concept is.

“It’s a common talking-point and slippery-slope argument meant to show that if we let gay people marry, we’ll just be going to hell in a handbasket. However, it just doesn’t happen that way. And it looks very much like you’re clouding the issue in the same manner as the people I’m describing.” Those who practice polygamy could be pawns on both side of the fence. And sometimes when things are done they have unexpected circumstances. Prohibition seemed good, it didn’t work. Allowing private citizens to own automatic weapons, that surely didn’t work. And there are those who thought if you let non-property owners, minorities, women, etc to vote it do this or that society would crumble, and yeah it didn’t. That should be an indication that even if “the barn doors” were thrown open it is not like we have no indication or should use past acts that proved not to be as terrible as thought to rule the day, if dealt with in purely sectarian manner. I am not trying to cloud anything, but expose how polygamist are basically looked over. I would say some Gays would distance themselves from polygamist because people will :freak out” and they will stain the movement and cause less support for it so to hide their aversion of it they say it is the religious right only.

“And while I’m not opposed to my poly-triad friends marrying each other, I don’t think this is their step yet.” That is an opinion same as those on the ultra religious right would say it is not the time for Gays yet. Each has his opinion. If you take away opinion and go with the logic of fairness even if unpopular riders want to get on the bus, they get on the bus. To go at it as “You wait your turn, we deserve ours now more than you and if you show up it will be a rough trip if they just don’t take back all the tickets” To be completely fair the though should be to stand shoulder to shoulder with no gap between to get yours as well as aiding them to get theirs.

@Hypocrisy_Central

re: Well on a complete secular dogma there would be no violation of a man marrying his mother if both were of legal age or a woman her brother or uncle, they would just be people marrying the one they loved.
There has been strong disapproval in most societies of all religions and cultural stripes on the issue of incest. Even secular atheists pretty much think it’s uncool. And if you simply mean “familial love” (as in family attachment) and not “romantic love,” I think this is to misunderstand why most people marry nowadays. Marriage is usually sought after because the people have romantic, sexual feelings for each other, not platonic affection.

re: if dealt with in purely sectarian manner
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

re: That is an opinion same as those on the ultra religious right would say it is not the time for Gays yet.
Whether or not something is morally right, the law usually changes only when a majority of society is ready for it to change. The civil rights movement happened when there was a kind of tipping point in public opinion, even though we know that black people and white people are equal in all ways that could possibly matter. And in the same way, we’re nearing a tipping point on the matter of gay marriage. The fact that people argue so fiercely about it (and the legal battles about it in various locales going sometimes one way, sometimes the other) are big clues that it’s almost their time to gain this right. That’s what I mean about it being “their time.” Different groups (such as the religious Right) can say it’s not the time for gay folks to marry yet, but in the population as a whole, there is growing acceptance of gay people as being mainstream. (To contrast, some people will always hold out that it is not the right time for gay folks, just as some diehards think it’s still not the time for black folks to have rights.)

However, a Gallup poll in 2006 found that only 5% of Americans thought polygamy was acceptable. Compared to the 40–46% approval rating lately for gay marriage, I don’t think we’re near any kind of social tipping point for the legalization of group marriage. (In other words, socially, it’s probably not their time, no matter how moral you or I think it may be. I’m not stating an opinion about the morality of polygamy here, but a social observation.)

@laureth “There has been strong disapproval in most societies of all religions and cultural stripes on the issue of incest. Even secular atheists pretty much think it’s uncool.” Part of my point exactly, at one point (when polygamy was quite the common place) Gay sex might have got you killed (yeah there was Sodom and Gomorrah and places like that, rare but not as common) and marriage of the sort was unthinkable. In that same reasoning incestuous unions are abhorred right now. From a secular point there is nothing but popular opinion that makes it wrong. Where did that thinking come from? I can only see it as coming from religion, same as stealing, killing, cheating (business and relationship) because sans religion what is to stop any of those from being seen and done as common practice? Animals steal food from each other, they kill each other with no remorse, most are not faithful to any one spouse (maybe wolves and some other small exceptions), and certainly animals would not pass up the chance to mate a fertile female even if they were born of the same litter, flock school etc.

“Whether or not something is morally right, the law usually changes only when a majority of society is ready for it to change.” Another point exactly, to who see Gay marriage as right or polygamy as wrong makes no difference if you are going to stick to the basic core fairness. Fair would be fair no matter how popular or not people (humans) care to view it, hence the 5% approval for polygamist marriages to the near 50% for Gay marriages. Secularly there is NO difference. If we play a pure numbers game one can rationalize the Holocaust would have been OK if Nazi Germany never fell because the majority was for gassing the Jews. If they had not lost the war they would have never been held to task for that the same as the Spaniards were never taken to task wiping out the Mayans (or was it the Incas).

“I don’t think we’re near any kind of social tipping point for the legalization of group marriage. (In other words, socially, it’s probably not their time, no matter how moral you or I think it may be.” That is an opinion, when you say “I think” that is your thought, and you have every right to have them. I would say just as you have your thought(s) so do I and others, and some of them might think why should we make changes for one (the more popular) and not the other(s) (less popular)? When does “fair” have a right time to be fair? I have my thoughts on it from a religious man but to many that might not seem fair but it is my belief, I would not expect secular people to get it. But my secular side devoid of spiritual tenets or beliefs say once religion is removed it is about unilateral equality whether or not it is socially popular or not. If we go about determining what is fair by what the masses think we might as well chuck the Constitution as a non-religious separate from church doctrine of fairness. ;-)

@Hypocrisy_Central

Sodom and Gomorrah – the Bible story where these cities got blasted was a morality tale about pride and lack of hospitality.

From a secular point there is nothing but popular opinion that makes [incest] wrong. Where did that thinking come from? I can only see it as coming from religion… Actually, there’s something in the human mind itself that is just squicked out by the idea of mating with people you knew when you were small together. Obviously this doesn’t work for everyone, but it’s a common enough phenomenon that it’s been studied: see kin detection mechanisms. It’s a good way to avoid too much inbreeding with the family. Now, whether or not you think God put it in the brain, or if you’re like me and you believe that it evolved that way, it definitely came from a deeper place than just reading the Bible and picking up that something is wrong. It’s biologically based, not Biblical.

…because sans religion what is to stop any of those from being seen and done as common practice?—You are equating religion with morality here, and falsely too. Even monkeys have a sense of morality, and I expect that people would have nothing less. In fact, there’s a word for people born without the moral sense that people seem to take for granted: Sociopathy (or “antisocial personality disorder”). Clearly not every atheist is a sociopath, so a moral sense must come from somewhere other than their religious system. (Strengthening this conclusion is the apparent inability of some very pious people to help themselves from activities like extramarital affairs, raping children, embezzlement, etc. If they have religion, how is it that they are not also the most moral?)

who see Gay marriage as right or polygamy as wrong makes no difference if you are going to stick to the basic core fairness—> I agree. However, here you appear to be confusing “fair” with “legal.” Some things that are fair are not legal. Some things that are legal are not fair. My point, and I’ll say it again, is “Whether or not something is morally right, the law usually changes only when a majority of society is ready for it to change.” Your example about the Holocaust being fair and moral because it was governmentally mandated is fallacious (although thank you for obeying Godwin’s law).

when you say “I think” that is your thought, and you have every right to have them—> Would you like it better if I rephrase this into “Because only 5% of Americans believe that polygamy is acceptable, we are not anywhere close to the legalization of group marriage”? Because I often use “I think…” to mean “Based on the evidence I’ve seen, I have reached the conclusion that…”

When does “fair” have a right time to be fair?—> Fair is fair, like I said, whether it is legal or not. What does have a “right time” is the passing of legislation, although in this use, you might be mixing up “right” (in the sense of fairness) with “likelihood” (as measured by the actual chances of such a law passing). When I am pointing out that legalized group marriage is currently less likely than gay marriage to be made legal, I am making a statistical, not a moral, observation.

@laureth “Sodom and Gomorrah – the Bible story where these cities got blasted was a morality tale about pride and lack of hospitality.” All can say that is their interpretation, many others would see the reason for immorality and wickedness. I never mentioned why it got wiped out but that it was one place where Gay sex was quire common.

“Actually, there’s something in the human mind itself that is just squicked out by the idea of mating with people you knew when you were small” “but it’s a common enough phenomenon that it’s been studied: see kin detection mechanisms.” Which is not conclusive because for every incident you can drag out for that, there is an incident such as together.http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2003/may/17/weekend7.weekend2 or other stories where siblings separated at birth and ended up married or sleeping together, toss in the use of sperm banks and you up the likelihood also maybe not by that much, but it does.

“It’s biologically based, not Biblical.” And I can say the other way around. No where in he study about the morality of chimps did I read about a full and true moral compass. There was no mention about if a chimp would be remorseful if it killed a Rhesus or Spider monkey or any other animal. And I did not see any mention of if a chimp would boink its kin female chimp if she was a fertile female chimp in the area. It all centered pretty much on food, and many other animals that are domesticated are smart enough not to attack the source of food.

“Some things that are fair are not legal. Some things that are legal are not fair. My point, and I’ll say it again, is ‘Whether or not something is morally right, the law usually changes only when a majority of society is ready for it to change.” Your example about the Holocaust being fair and moral because it was governmentally mandated is fallacious (although thank you for obeying Godwin’s law).” I know that, many laws we have now are the law and have no footing in fairness and a lot of laws that are legal to me (and I will take a stand and say to me) are very immoral or lack morality. And Godwin can have his law; I could have pointed out many close parallel occurrences but the Holocaust is most famous, notorious and recognizable by most people. I could have used the Inquisition (but them I would be branded as attacking the Catholic church), Slavery in the South of the US (then get branded a racist or finger-pointing whiner rehashing old crap), or maybe how the settlers rape and plundered all the 1st Nations tribes that were here 1st. No one like the Nazis so you can speak bad against them all day and will offend no one. It is all the same, if the majority in numbers dictate which is most fair and/or right then many things seen as injustice now wasn’t then because back when it happened they had the numbers.

“When I am pointing out that legalized group marriage is currently less likely than gay marriage to be made legal, I am making a statistical, not a moral, observation.” So monkeys aside, Nazis aside, because they are less popular or further away from societal blessing and acceptance they should be made to wait? How long? Should they wait to see if they ever get close to 50% and if they never do make peace with the fact they can’t marry even if Gays get their chance to? Why is that? Because who gets it and who don’t is a legal matter of who got the most numbers, and if it is not then they don’t get it; tough? Then what is the flap over Prop 8? The Gays tried it, didn’t have the numbers (just more than polygamist) so the society in California said “not yet”. Instead of going to court and trying to over turn the will of the voters based on the unfairness or it (they had a legal vote and lost) maybe they should convince more Gays or Gay marriage supporters to move into the state so next time they will have the numbers, since it is all about legal matters which in many times is left to the vote of the people (all fairness notwithstanding).

@Hypocrisy_Central

Your story about the siblings has a very important quality that they state in the first sentence: you’re 40 and you meet your sperm donor sibling. It’s highly unlikely that these two people grew up together, and wouldn’t have the internal taboo, therefore, against mating someone you grew up with (pretty much by definition). The guy in the story was separated from his baby sister when he was two years old and clearly didn’t remember her.

re: Chimps – You’re criticizing the chimp morality link because they aren’t enough like people? Chimps are not people, and don’t have nearly the cultural history or the brainpower to realize and know all the things that people do. However, they still have a small sense of “fair” – which, considering they’re not people (and have no religion, which is my point) is remarkable, eh?

Re: Numbers dictating fair – You continue to confuse “fair” and “statistical probability.” If group marriage doesn’t pass today, it’s not because group marriage is wrong, it’s because enough people don’t think it’s right. Hence, we agree, you and I, that numbers and laws do not dictate what is fair or right. I’m not sure why you keep accusing me of insisting that a popularity contest makes something morally right.

Re: “So monkeys aside, Nazis aside, because they are less popular or further away from societal blessing and acceptance they should be made to wait? How long?” – This is like asking how long a car without gas should be made to wait before it can continue its journey. The definition is, “However long until someone puts gas in it.” It’s not an arbitrary wait based on the morality of the car, it’s a technical restriction based on the amount of gas in the car and the car’s inability to run without gas.

Similarly, the ability for people to group-marry is not a restriction based on the morality of the practice, it’s a wait until enough people want to vote “yes, that’s cool by me.” The vote won’t pass until people pass it – that’s the wait. I don’t know how long it will be. How long until people think polygamy is acceptable? Your guess is as good as mine. When there’s enough gas in their tank, that particular car will go – and when enough people think it’s OK, it’ll happen. Please note that this has no effect on the inherent morality of group marriage (as we established, legal doesn’t necessarily mean moral and vice versa).

Now, polygamists, just like gay people, are welcome to lobby the public for their cause. Sometimes that changes votes, just like the Mormons from outside California are able to spend enough money lobbying Californians to vote for the Mormon moral agenda in regards to Prop 8. Like I said above, the votes and the 40–46% approval rating for gay marriage means that it’s not quite legally their time yet – even though it’s something they should morally be able to do.

The fight against the prop 8 vote, though, is that it might not actually be a legal vote. “The California Constitution requires that any significant changes in the roles played by the different branches of government at least must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature before going to voters as a proposed constitutional revision. That didn’t happen with Prop 8. Instead, Prop 8 improperly attempts to nullify the equality guarantee — a central constitutional principle that secures our form of government — with a simple majority vote through the initiative process.” link

You say you didn’t want gay people to be able to marry because they weren’t including polygamists in their fight. I say, why deny any group a civil right because of that reason? I notice that the black folks who fought so hard for their civil rights back in the 60’s didn’t bring the gay people or the polygamists with them; do you believe that we should still sit at separate lunch counters or not be allowed to intermarry because of that?

laureth “*It’s highly unlikely that these two people grew up together, and wouldn’t have the internal taboo, therefore, against mating someone you grew up with (pretty much by definition).”* From what that article you sited seem to say was there was some genetic or biological thing that would kick in if you were to happen on your blood kin to prevent you from becoming attractive and mating. Even so, incest is not made relevant only if you know you are related. So long as there is a blood relation be you grew up with them or know of them before you met makes no difference.

“re: Chimps – You’re criticizing the chimp morality link because they aren’t enough like people? Chimps are not people, and don’t have nearly the cultural history or the brainpower to realize and know all the things that people do.” Well that is kind of the point; they are not human. If anything I would have to say the study is suspect and incomplete because they only looked at or commented on a small sliver of chimpdom. Being that as you say they are not human. What the observers see and equate to human fairness could be nothing but the apes don’t have a clue because they are not human their whole reasoning could be for their better good in the end not because they truly cared for their fellow ape.

“Hence, we agree, you and I, that numbers and laws do not dictate what is fair or right. I’m not sure why you keep accusing me of insisting that a popularity contest makes something morally right.” No, I am not accusing you of that or anything else I was expanding on the observation you made about “However, a Gallup poll in 2006 found that only 5% of Americans thought polygamy was acceptable. Compared to the 40–46% approval rating lately for gay marriage, I don’t think we’re near any kind of social tipping point for the legalization of group marriage. (In other words, socially, it’s probably not their time, no matter how moral you or I think it may be.” Those are numbers. And if Gay marriage time is closer because they have 46% tops to polygamist 5% logic would say there are more numbers (equaling people) on the side of Gay marriage for plural marriages. Which comes down to even if plural marriages are just as germane as Gay marriages they won’t get it any time soon because the number of people comfortable enough to allow it is not there, fairness notwithstanding.

“This is like asking how long a car without gas should be made to wait before it can continue its journey. The definition is, “However long until someone puts gas in it.” It’s not an arbitrary wait based on the morality of the car, it’s a technical restriction based on the amount of gas in the car and the car’s inability to run without gas.” I would say if both vehicles are the same technically it comes down to why you would gas one and not the other? Which brings it all back to it either fairness or straight legal, often times they co-exist. If don’t have gas because the fuel stations say we are not going to sell gas to you because you are not driving a hybrid but a Hummer it begs the question of fairness; not providing one with gas over the other has to point to a personal reason if there is not legal reason for not driving a hybrid. In short, Gay and plural marriage are the same just different models so why would one be denied simply because it is unpopular, less you get back to the numbers?

“The vote won’t pass until people pass it – that’s the wait…. The vote won’t pass until people pass it – that’s the wait.” In regards to Prop 8 if the vote was legal and I believe it was they did not have the numbers, you take it as sore loser and say “Since it did not come out my way I am going to sue to make it come out my way” just regroup and try it later. Or maybe what should be looked at is the ability of some judge(s) to overturn the will of the people (this was settled in the past) or for it even to have been allowed on the ballot (because the voters had spoken). As a secular man I am not against Gays wanting equal to straight people, but as a secular mane I can’t support Prop 8 because it favors one (with the higher approval and numbers) over another (with less approval and numbers); to me that is saying two equal groups are not being treated equally. As to Civil Rights movement in the past, I was too young to know how they conducted business. I suspect they would have conducted business as most people seem to, with their emotions and their personal beliefs on their sleeve. I also think Gays and polygamist were non-factors as most were not open and notorious about who they were and the lifestyle the led. Even back in the Summer of Love ’69 Gays were conspicuously absent when fornication broke lose and ran wild with love ins, orgies, and more. Now as a religious man any unions outside 1m1w and married I am not for, and that would include the plural marrying bunch as well. But it is not what I personally think if it is about fairness or legality it comes down to who has the numbers.

I will ask you; do you believe it is legal to deny plural marriages while ushering in Gay marriages if they don’t have the votes and/or support that Gays do? And should it be found to be unfair do the polygamist have any legal grounds to say anything about it or should they just take it until enough non-polygamist decide they want to put some “gas” in the tank (cause)? And in partng would you see some judge giving Gays the right to marry but not polygamist the same as during the Civil Rights movement a judge would grant a right to Blacks but say though Philipinos are in nearly the same situation, so close there is not that much distance between but because there is not that many Philipinos or those who support them, they have to wait? I could not see that happening, could you?

@Hypocrisy_Central

I am using the “gas in the tank” metaphor to mean that when we get enough public approval (“gas”), the polygamists will probably be allowed to marry (“car will go.”) Now, you ask, “why you would gas one and not the other?” That is a question you would have to ask not just me, but every one of the 95% of Americans not in favor of polygamous marriage. Ask them for their gallon of gas approval, and see what you get.

The way you phrase the gas metaphor, you make “filling up the tank” (gaining approval for group marriage) a moral quandary rather than a math equation. Each person who approves, it’s one bit closer to making it happen legally: simple math. They have a long way to go, though. Again, it is not a big moral hand holding their time back (“deciding not to gas up the car”). That is assuming there is gas that were just not putting in the car for moral reasons. I’m saying there is no gas, whether filling up the car is moral or not. I chose the “gas in the car” image because it’s a physical necessity to have the gas in the car if it is to go, and it’s a sheer legal necessity to have enough people vote for something if it’s put up for a vote to become law. To say that we’re holding back the gas on moral grounds is like saying we’re forbidding people to think kindly on it on moral grounds. I’m not forbidding people to think or feel anything at all. They do those things pretty well on their own.

Anyway, gas metaphor aside. You ask, “do you believe it is legal to deny plural marriages while ushering in Gay marriages if they don’t have the votes and/or support that Gays do?” Strictly legally, yes, because plural marriage isn’t the issue on the ballot most places in the country, whereas gay marriage is here and there. Morally, I might not agree, and think it’s fine. Remember, a law is not necessarily a comment on what’s moral or not. There isn’t (I don’t believe, anyway) any law that says that plural marriages must be put on the ballot if gay marriage is put on the ballot.

To say that you don’t know what went on during the civil rights movement, though, surprises me. I wasn’t born until the 1970s but I have a fair understanding of lots of things that happened before that. If you think that gay folks ought to bring along polygamists on their effort, well, I say that black folks ought to have brought gays along, and polygamists. But they didn’t. Do you think that was wrong of them? Should they have gone out of their way to help gay people, or did they have enough of a handful trying to get their own civil rights? Like I said up before, society changes in small increments. Right now, gay marriage seems to be the increment that most people are interested in changing, as far as marriage goes. If polygamists can muster up the same amount of legal action, public approval, and plain old visibility and time (like the gay people have), they’ll do just as well.

(Right now, the way society sees marriage, it’s largely two people. Changing the gender of one of those people is a smaller change, it would seem, than changing how many as well as what genders.)