Spain legalizes gay marriage

So basically, you get the majority of the U.S. supporting gay couples getting all the "stuff" you get from marriage, so long as it's not called "marriage." Which to me is...pretty whacky.

I don't see how its that whacky. There are really two different definitions of marriage: the spiritual and the political one. Woe be to anyone who confuses them. Spiritual = marriage is the union of two souls. Pollitical = marriage determines who gets what you have after you die. Etc.

I think what the ultimate issue at stake here is whether Americans agree that homosexuals should be able to lay claim to spiritual marriage. I think popular opinion, as Roo says, is already there with gays getting political marriage. But allowing homosexuals the right to claim spiritual marriage is a religious issue, and lord knows how upset people can get about religion.

I think what the ultimate issue at stake here is whether Americans agree that homosexuals should be able to lay claim to spiritual marriage.

Surely that's nothing America as a whole has to come to a definite decision about, or indeed should. It's something that should be left to the various religious insitutions to decide for themselves. For the american government to come in and say that mormons, catholics, muslims or whatever can or cannot marry gays in the spiritual sense would be pretty damned wrong.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
I think what the ultimate issue at stake here is whether Americans agree that homosexuals should be able to lay claim to spiritual marriage.

Surely that's nothing America as a whole has to come to a definite decision about, or indeed should. It's something that should be left to the various religious insitutions to decide for themselves. For the american government to come in and say that mormons, catholics, muslims or whatever can or cannot marry gays in the spiritual sense would be pretty damned wrong.

So would taking away private property for other private uses but you know how that goes.

You are correct, ALG, but what causes the issue is that there are two "definitions" of the same word ("marriage") and using the word is just as likely to mean one as it is the other to those who do not take the effort to delineate the two. Personally, I support the political "marriage" for same-sex partners and yet I don't understand why it's such a big deal if a "domestic partnership" or "civil union" has all (and I mean all) of the same rights as marriage without the label. Of course, my solution would actually to be for the state to return "marriage" to the church and to call them all civil unions/domestic partnerships regardless of orientation.

If we really want the government out of our bedrooms, we should just abolish marriage licensing.

I could accept that, but it opens a rat's nest of litigation about things like retirement funds, social security benefits and the like. Even with a theoretically airtight will and estate plan, the state can step in if the partners are unmarried. Marriage does convey an extensive set of rights/privileges that are not granted by any other state license. Also, if you're not married, the rights of children of that union are (can be) marginalized considerably by US estate law.

Why do we suffer Wiccans to live?

Just a pedantic note here...that passage of the bible, if you read it in Aramaic or Greek says "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." I may be mistaken, but if I remember my bible translation history, it was the King James Version that changed it to "witch". Just saying.

Grumpicus wrote:

Of course, my solution would actually to be for the state to return "marriage" to the church and to call them all civil unions/domestic partnerships regardless of orientation.

That's the only solution that makes any sense to me.

That's the only solution that makes any sense to me.

Yeah, I think Grump's got it right.

Grumpicus wrote:

Of course, my solution would actually to be for the state to return "marriage" to the church and to call them all civil unions/domestic partnerships regardless of orientation.

/signed

Nice, Ã? just got to boast about Divine Divinity being Belgian, and now this topic... Belgium was the SECOND country in the world to make gay marriage possible! Aren't we tolerant peeps?

The comment on polygamy made me think though... intuïtively I opposed it, on the basis of marriage being about TWO people. Which is basically the same argument as saying marriage is about man and woman. Busted So now I say: yay to polygamy! And if the sheep obliges: hurray to bestiality!

-ahem-

/approved completely

I'm hearing Belgian sheep are so tight and smooth like fine Belgian chocolate.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I'm hearing Belgian sheep are so tight and smooth like fine Belgian chocolate.

/signed

Oh wait.. wrong quote.

Just a pedantic note here...that passage of the bible, if you read it in Aramaic or Greek says "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." I may be mistaken, but if I remember my bible translation history, it was the King James Version that changed it to "witch". Just saying.

Point still stands, though.

Wow, thanks for the "support". It encourages me (perhaps foolishly) to post just a bit more.

dejanzie wrote:

The comment on polygamy made me think though... intuïtively I opposed it, on the basis of marriage being about TWO people. Which is basically the same argument as saying marriage is about man and woman. Busted So now I say: yay to polygamy! And if the sheep obliges: hurray to bestiality!

http://www.answers.com/topic/polygam...

Polygamy, literally many marriages in ancient Greek, is a marital practice in which a person has more than one spouse simultaneously (as opposed to monogamy where each person has a maximum of one spouse at any one time). The term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether such marriages are legally recognised.

Again, give the "marriages" back to the church. Marriage is a religions institution. Partnerships involving the division of assets are a sociopolitical one. My personal opinion of a domestic partnership is that, from a contractual and legal standpoint, it should be fairly similar to a business partnership.

Everyone might be an equal partner:

Polygamy vs. group marriage

Most polygamous relationships are either polygynous or polyandrous, but not both at once. Under these relationships, one person may have multiple spouses, but none of those spouses will be married to anybody else. Group marriage or Circle Marriage is a form of marriage in which more than one man and more than one woman form a family unit, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage. Group marriage is sometimes called "true polygamy" or polygynandry, from a combination of the words polygyny and polyandry.

...or there may be a senior partner:

Polygamy vs. bigamy

Polygamy is the anthropological term, which can be either polygyny (one man having multiple wives) or polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands). Historically, both practices have been found, but polygyny appears far more commonly than polyandry.

Bigamy is the term used by law when someone has entered into any number of "secondary" marriages in addition to one legally-recognized marriage. Many countries have specific statutes outlawing bigamy, making any secondary marriage a crime. When a man with three wives is charged, for example, he is charged with two counts of bigamy, for the two "secondary" marriages after the first one.

...but as long as everyone is a consenting adult, let them draw up whatever social contract they prefer.

As a matter of fact, polygamy is more common in the world than monogamy:

Polygamy worldwide

Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones. In 1994, Theodore C. Bergstrom noted in his paper "On the Economics of Polygyny" [1] (http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Evolu...) (U. Mich. Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory, Working Paper Series 94-11) that "Although overt polygamy is rare in our own society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the world. Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850."

"But what about the children?" you ask. Many of the problems of modern youth are attributed to the lack of time that parents can or do dedicate to the raising of their children. Along the lines of the adage "It takes a village..." more eyes and ears to keep watch on the children can't be all bad. Certainly there are other species for which the herd social structure works quite well (specifically, I believe I'm thinking of elephants). Again, "Although overt polygamy is rare in our own society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the world." Who says that our model is the best?

Healthcare? Well it's easier to get the group rate when you bring your own group with you.

Inheritance? What's the difference (other than blood) between a large group or persons who have all chosen to spend their life together and a large group of siblings (who really didn't have much choice in the matter)? Said inheritance can be divided among the individuals or they can be placed in trust for the benefit of the group at large. Again, it all depends on the terms of the original partnership contract.

This is getting long so I'll knock it off now. Obviously, none of these things are likely to come about in our time and culture but should you ever find yourself in Grumpicusistan, don't be surprised if you see a herd of women and children walking down the street.

Because those rules aren't codified into American Law.

Whoa, back the truck up. You were not making a legal argument. You were saying that if someone bases an argument on human/civil rights, that they either go whole hog or not at all. I just want to draw that distinction up front.

These views have evolved since the birth of civilization, but once we have arrived at a key conclusion, those rights become universal and inviolate (All or Nothing) without overwhelmingly compelling reasoning.

I'm unsure how to take this, in light of the Amendments to our own Constitution, and our own continuing need for Congress and the Appeals Courts to decide how and whether these "universal and inviolate" rights apply. I mean, the fact that they are not universal and inviolate is evident. Involuntary servitude is practices in prisons, and the relationship between religion and government is still under strong debate.

But Americans as a whole aren't being asked if they'll accept one definition of marriage or the other. Only 9 Americans are being consulted.

Say what? What about the Defense of Marriage Act? And all the Appellate courts before the Supreme, and the Congressmen who weigh whether we actually need legislative change or not? What about the states that have passed laws restricting marriages? Americans are indeed consulted, and they are responding vociferously. This is under active debate and will be for years.

And the arguments that marriage is a fundamental Right and not a State privilege puts forth an important question. Where is that definition codified into law? If we as Americans believe that marriage is a universal right and not a privilege for a preferred group, why do most states and Federal Law recognize only marriage between a man and a woman? Instead, we're being told that marriage is a Right. If it is truly a Right, then it must apply to everyone. Providing rights to one group and not to others is the very definition of discrimination, if these arguments are to be taken seriously. Rights should be universal and there is more historical and legal (not to mention Biblical) precedence for polygamous and incestuous marriage than there is for homosexual marriage.

This is a more cogent argument, but it still falls down on the idea that Rights are universal. They are not. We accord rights to American citizens that we don't give to others, and we guard that closely. We practice discrimination to combat discrimination, at times. And we remove rights under certain circumstances - for felons, soldiers and certain government employees.

But I think that the argument is actually made on analogy, rather than a full-blown assertion of an independent, stand-alone right. If marriage confers financial benefits, but recognizes a dedicated union under the law, then the extent of the "Right" is to committed adult partners who are willing to legally combine their financial holdings. Under the law, that's the scope, speaking very roughly. So while someone can argue that this position is due to them due to the concept of "civil rights", say, that does not mean that they or anyone else would take it beyond that.

Look at it another way. Do you argue that the extension of the right to marry to biracial couples opens the door to polygamy and bestiality? Because it must, under your logic. Clearly, what's missing is the bracketing of the argument by social standards, tradition, existing laws and the like. Just like the philosophical argument, your legal line here depends on taking it to the extreme. But we already constrain even our "universal" rights; why should this be different?

Last I checked, we haven't burned any Satanists at the stake. Freedom of Religion is a Right and there aren't any exemptions to believing in whatever God you wanted to (or not at all). Gambling is a privilege only legal in a few venues. If we were to demand that gambling is a Right, we wouldn't be saying that only blacks were allowed to gamble, we'd say that everyone is allowed to gamble. We don't get to prefer one group over another once we make that claim.

No, that's explicitly not true. We often set the rights of one group of people over another. I think that you've gone too far in idealizing the argument based on a right. I'd say more that it's a claim of equality of one specific group to another, the "right" being the right to be treated like others in a similar situation - that of consensual adult commitment of financial and legal rights to each other. There's no moral commitment, no extension to other groups implied, it's a very specific claim that you are generalizing out of recognition. I don't mean that as a put-down or sarcasm, I really think part of the problem is the hysteria engendered by thinking "OMG what will come next? What does this mean?", while neglecting that this has already happened with regards to miscegenation, and we did not have all the dire problems predicted by naysayers at the time.

I'll note that as far as states legislating hetero marriages, that's only going to crop up in states where the population really supports it, or the legislature is massively one-sided. The more instructive view is to ask why most states did *not* pass such legislation. The obvious reason is that most people are not comfortable going that far in the law.

Because we haven't agreed yet on what those restrictions might be. Actually, we as a nation decided that marriage was between a man and a woman back in 1996 (DOMA) but that restriction on marriage didn't survive the courts. But why selectively vacate that restriction to include monogamous homosexuals and not other non-traditional marriages?

Because the monogamous homosexuals are the very constituency involved! No one except the opponents are claiming that the issue is bigger than that. I'm really, really puzzled here. If I asked why we should not subject Americans to unlimited detention without charges under the Patriot Act, you'd point out that that is intended to apply only to foreigners. Then if I said "Well, why does it not apply to citizens", you'd think I was pulling your leg.

The privilege being asked for is limited by the askers to one group, and one only - homosexuals willing to commit to a stable monogamous relationship under the rule of law. Anything else is speculation. I'm asking, why are *you* extending that idea only to knock it down?

I think that state-sanctioned marriage is just another way to get more taxes out of people, since the original purpose is gone. It's probably an idea that can be handled in other ways - for example, just allow binding insurance contracts and wills between arbitrary people sharing the same address, stuff like that. But instead, it's all tied up in morality, like people think that churches would be bound by this. And of course, they would not.

Personally, I the political "marriage" for same-sex partners and yet I don't understand why it's such a big deal if a "domestic partnership" or "civil union" has all (and I mean all) of the same rights as marriage without the label.

Because that opens the door to a lot of problems. Common law marraiges in most states is 7 years. Do we dare open up the can of worms that is common law civil unions? What restrictions would we put on them? How would that effect inheritance and alimony?

Force people to get their act together and write down who goes to what? Just a thought.

Common-law marriages brings up a great point. There are gay couples who have been together 10,15...50 years who only have as many "rights" as they can get legal papers to cover them (which still doesn't include such niceties as social security inheritance for the one who's been more the "care giver" of the relationship). Some of the arguments around gay marriage are that "people will start doing crazy things!" or as they put it in Ghost Busters:

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

Except all of these relationships already exist, waiting to be recognized. Many of them with kids. Most Americans agree they should get certain benefits and protections. On the one hand, I think, "heck, call it 'gayriage' for all I care, just do it." On the other hand I think,
"Ah the enshrining of second class citizenship. Gosh I remember when we did that before."

Still, I'd take the former over nothing.

Well said, Grumpicus. I'd like to make you one of my wives. *hugs*

I didn't see this thread turning into a FAQ on polygamy! Holy cow!

I don't know about all that business. My girlfriend and I are both far too jealous, I think, for any practice of polygamy to stand a chance. I can't say I particularily like the idea anyhow.

Wouldn't you think legislation surrounding legalizing polygamy would get really sticky and complicated? What with multiple people reaping government benefits from being married to only one man (in the case of polygyny) or woman (in the case of the other one), when it would typically take a man and woman per each marriage to qualify? Not to mention all the societal/religious concerns. Sounds pretty messy to me!

I agree. I'm waaaaay too territorial for polygamy. Anybody else puts their grubby paws on my man and we'll have words.

I have issues with the practice as it is, anyway. We're talking about polygamy as if it were a practice in which all parties involved are a) adults and b) make a concious, rational decision to engage in it. Unfortunately, that's not usually the case. In many polygamistic (word?) cultures, women - no, actually, little girls - are married off at such a young age: 12, 14, some cases as young as 9. I have a hard time believing that a 12 year old can genuinely, honestly consent to such an arrangement. Jesus, when I was twelve, I had a hard enough time consenting to eat lunch at the same table as a boy - much less marry him.

I guess I'm just saying that, like so many things in life, polygamy might be okay in theory, but in practice, it ends up being pretty despicable.

Obviously, polygamy is not for everyone (including myself) and that's all I have to say about that.

KaterinLHC wrote:

I have issues with the practice as it is, anyway. We're talking about polygamy as if it were a practice in which all parties involved are a) adults and b) make a concious, rational decision to engage in it. Unfortunately, that's not usually the case. In many polygamistic (word?) cultures, women - no, actually, little girls - are married off at such a young age: 12, 14, some cases as young as 9. I have a hard time believing that a 12 year old can genuinely, honestly consent to such an arrangement. Jesus, when I was twelve, I had a hard enough time consenting to eat lunch at the same table as a boy - much less marry him.

I guess I'm just saying that, like so many things in life, polygamy might be okay in theory, but in practice, it ends up being pretty despicable.

Don't get polygamist cultures confused with ones that marry off their children in arranged marriages. There are plenty of monogamist cultures that do the same thing.

Of course, Grumpicus. I was thinking mainly of the scary Fundamentalist extremo-Mormons that live in Arizona and Utah. You know, the ones whose elders have something like fifty wives. They've been in the news lately, and they were the ones I specifically had in mind.

First, I laughed at Elysium's post...its ok Ulairi...it was a joke

Now, why is defining marriage 'whacky' Roo? Why does something that is an institution have to be changed because a small minority is offended. Get over it people (not on forum, directed at the masses ) Give them the same rights, but pick another word - I say let them have civil unions - but dammit, marriage is a man and a woman. Just that simple - I know its just a word, but words have strong meaning to them.

You all know I'm steadfastly against gay marriage...very much so...and against civil unions, even though I wouldn't throw a hissy fit about it. I don't support, in ANY shape form or fashion gay couples having or adopting children - I think its setting a bad precedent, in so many ways.

BUT...back to the words have meaning. Well, the word marriage is important to me (whether I'm on my first or third wife) - as defined as a man and woman. All those that say its not, is it ok for people to walk around calling gay's fags, or using the N word, etc...Nope, its not - because words HAVE power. I say to the gay rights advocates, get off my marriage street. You want to be the same for all intensive purposes, but you are not - sorry, thats just my view. I'll compromise and meet you half way, and let you have all the rights without the formal word attached. But you fight me on that, and I'm going balls to the walls the other way, and will fight tooth and nail to not give them any rights, compensation, benefits, etc... Sorry if that sounds mean spirited..not meant to be. Just trying to say the concept and word of marriage are important, and the gay rights groups just piss on them for the sake of some misdirected attempt to make everything be seen from a minority gay perspective. I just don't buy it.

And as for Canada - well, for a week, its all I saw on the news. Holy crap guys - you'd think in today's world, that the politicians would spend some time actually working issues that don't kiss ass and pander to a small percentage of voters. Let Spain and Canada have the laws - I say it is wrong. Why do we need to change our basic premise of marriage to appease 2% or so of the population. Why?

Finally - Roo...suppose that lad in your class is just an unhappy tot - and by saying 'I hate this song, it's gay' - he is simply expressing his anguish with it being a 'happy' song - is that wrong?

Why do we need to change our basic premise of marriage to appease 2% or so of the population. Why?

Why does letting 2% of the population use the word "marriage" instead of something else such a big deal? You call out the fact that it's such a small minority but isn't that admitting the impact would be just as small? What would the odds of you even seeing a married gay couple be on a monthly basis?

That said, I'm perfectly fine calling it something else if the same rights are in place, it's just hard for anyone to let go of their cherished concepts. That goes for both sides of the table.

I agree that the word "marriage" has power...which, in my opinion, we as Americans cannot deny that power to some of our citizens, just because some other citizens don't like how they bump uglies. I suggest that the word "marriage" be removed from all legal documents and replaced with "union" until the word loses it's power, or until everyone agrees to play nicely.

Discrimination is discrimination...whether it's because the "undesirables" are Black, Asian, Sodomites, Sapphos, or Old Rich White Men. We, as a country, cannot codify discrimination into our code of laws.

Pigpen, I'm all about you being uncomfortable with someone's sexual proclivity, but your discomfort shouldn't give you the right to legislate against it. (I'm using *you* as a stand in for all the people who believe it should be legislated...not attacking You personally. You know I love you, you big weirdo.)

I really like the sentiment we discussed upstream...that marriages should be performed by churchs...but all legal unions should be performed by the state, without regard to color, creed, or partner sex.

Polygamy in my reality? Only if I'm allowed to be the queen bee and have a hive of cabana boys that report to the Main Husband. Which, ya know...the Duck isn't going to go for. (Silly Duck.) If another woman tried to step into my bedroom...well, I've got half a ton of lye, a pond, and access to a woodchipper. I'm just saying....MINE! (I've never shared well...)

I don't support, in ANY shape form or fashion gay couples having or adopting children - I think its setting a bad precedent, in so many ways.

Have you known any gay families with kids? Seriously, not being facetious here. I have plenty of evangelical friends who have changed their perspective on gays simply by getting to know them.

Why do we need to change our basic premise of marriage to appease 2% or so of the population.

We did it to "appease" about 13% of the population in 1967... Besides, most estimates I've seen put gays at a much higher percentage, around 9% in urban areas. And they are found in over 99% of US counties. (This is based on advertising information; that is, surveys done by people who use the figures to make mucho dinero, not by gormless government drones or political activists).

I'm not sure what 4% and skin color buys your argument. I just don't see the big difference.

I don't think America is set up socially for polygamy. We put too much emphasis on sex and we don't have an extended family/clan structure to deal with. I think the mindset involved is very, very different from ours.

Just a thought. What polygamy means to, say, the Bedouin, would I suspect be nearly incomprehensible to us, as a fact of daily life.

I don't support, in ANY shape form or fashion gay couples having or adopting children - I think its setting a bad precedent, in so many ways.

I would like to know how you were raised? Parents? Adopted? Other?

My freshman orientation class for college had a debate about this very subject, and what do you know we had several orphans in the class their. One student was with a hetro family, one had no family, and one with a gay family (all cases were adopted families). One of the other students who still had his biological family argued against adoptions for gay families while all three orphans told their stories of growing up alone and other stuff just too cruel for a child to experience. Eventually the student that argued against the gay adoptions changed his mind as he came to the conclusion that having some form of a family is better than nothing at all.

The student that had the gay parents turned out just like all the other students in the class, one with hopes and dreams given to him by his adopted parents which otherwise he would never have. Thanks to those two parents they saved his life by convincing him that tomorrow was going to be a good day, a day worth living for.

Robear wrote:

I don't think America is set up socially for polygamy. We put too much emphasis on sex and we don't have an extended family/clan structure to deal with. I think the mindset involved is very, very different from ours.

Just a thought. What polygamy means to, say, the Bedouin, would I suspect be nearly incomprehensible to us, as a fact of daily life.

For the record, I agree. It's not at all practical... but in an academic discourse, I found it interesting and presented some examples why/how it could logically and logistically be implemented although culturally and politically I know it'd never happen.

Kat, I really don't want to come across as browbeating you because I've really enjoyed your posts (welcome to the neighborhood) but...

KaterinLHC wrote:

I have issues with the practice as it is, anyway. We're talking about polygamy as if it were a practice in which all parties involved are a) adults and b) make a concious, rational decision to engage in it. Unfortunately, that's not usually the case. In many polygamistic (word?) cultures, women - no, actually, little girls - are married off at such a young age: 12, 14, some cases as young as 9. I have a hard time believing that a 12 year old can genuinely, honestly consent to such an arrangement. Jesus, when I was twelve, I had a hard enough time consenting to eat lunch at the same table as a boy - much less marry him.

I guess I'm just saying that, like so many things in life, polygamy might be okay in theory, but in practice, it ends up being pretty despicable.

is not the same as

KaterinLHC wrote:

I was thinking mainly of the scary Fundamentalist extremo-Mormons that live in Arizona and Utah. You know, the ones whose elders have something like fifty wives. They've been in the news lately, and they were the ones I specifically had in mind.

To take a specific localized example and apply it generally to a worldwide practice is just bad form. To bring it full circle, though, for the purposes of my example, at least, I did present the argument assuming "A" and "B" were true. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

Of course, I prefer to get the thread back on topic and so I'll close by asking if anyone (Pigpen perhaps?) would have an issue with calling all social contracts (or civil unions a.k.a. marriages) by that very name regardless of the gender of the two participants. Stated differently,

Grumpicus wrote:

return "marriage" to the church and to call them all civil unions/domestic partnerships regardless of orientation.

Does the fact that your "marriage license" is now a "document of civil union" make you any less married? (Again, this is another thing that I realize is very unlikely to happen in our culture but I think it may be the best idea on this matter than I've heard in a long time.)