quote:
Since I thought we had already established relatively broad agreement that a change for gay marriage would, at least in most states, not require wholesale changes to the marriage codes, I tried to point out that much more drastic changes would be required for plural marriage.
As the links I posted show clearly, there are no changes necessary at all to allow plural marriages to take place.
If you are talking about property or parental issues that might arise after marriages are allowed, the links pretty well show that while property issues will be the same for polygamists, paternity laws will still need adjusting for Gay couples. There are still laws and regulations in place specifically regarding paternity, and many excluding gays from entering this state.
This was a gay rights org saying it, not the 700 club.
quote:
Notice also that I talked about a potential exponentiation of litigation... If plural marriage were to become very popular, as it potentially could, the strain on the court system would be staggering. How could it not be?
Yeah, I found this quite ironic. First you accuse me of making a slippery slope argument when all I did was argue the similarity of the constitutional arguments, then make an obvious slippery slope argument to support your argument.
Seriously, look at the argument above. If we allow polygamous marriage there is a potential exponential of litigation... the strain on the court system could be staggering... how could it not be? That is like the perfect example of a slippery slope argument.
1) Explain how allowing A, B, and C to marry each other, will result in any potential for greater number of divorce cases?
As it stands, since they are restricted from polygamy, if they do get married they will either do so in a series of marriages and divorces with each other, or end up marrying other people who they could then have divorces with.
And I have yet to see any reason why allowing people the chance to marry who they are more likely to want to marry and in the fashion they'd want to marry is more likely to result in divorce. As the link points out current marriage requirements have resulted in serial polygamy, which is filling up our courts.
2) Why would the addition of gays getting married not result in the same addition of court cases and so stagger the system. Just because a person can marry more than one person at one time, does not mean there will be more than the amount of divorces that person was going to have if not allowed that right. More at one time rather than spread out? Who knows? But three polygamous divorces will not necessarily take up any more of the court system than three gay divorces.
3) Why is the legal system in danger of collapse with additional divorces? Are we incapable of changing our legal system (like funding for more judges) if it is under strain?
This sounds suspiciously like the argument if we allow blacks or women the right to vote, then our electoral system will be swamped with the new amount of voters (and votes in general) and so collapse.
As our population continues to grow the number of divorce cases will also increase. Will we have to limit our population so as not to allow our system to be swamped, or will we change the system to fit its load if/when it needs it?
quote:
It seems odd to me that you go so far as to discuss "hub-and-spoke" marriage arrangements without considering that, in order to make such a thing legal, marriage laws will have to be completely re-written. A minor edit to merely take out gender references wouldn't be nearly enough.
Hahaha. I provided the links to prove my point. You care to do anything to prove your assertion? All it would take to allow polygamy is remove the prereq that one be unmarried, this is the same as removing the prereq that they be opposite sex.
Please give me one law that is not a definition or prereq that would have to be changed. And before you say "anti-polygamy laws" those are not marriage laws, those are criminal statutes, which would simply have to be struck or nonenforced, not rewritten... which is the same as striking definitions or prereqs anyway.
quote:
All I'm saying is that legalizing gay marriage will require only minimal change to legal codes yet will benefit millions of gay people. Changing marriage to accommodate bigamy would require drastic changes but would only "benefit" (imo a very loose use of that word) a handful of people.
Nice bit of bigotry there. Gays make up little over 10% of the population, why can anti-gay bigots not use the exact same phrasing you just used (especially handful and very loose use of the word "benefit")... and before you say they can't say "require drastic changes" I will repeat you have yet to show any more changes will be necessary to laws on the books to make polygamy happen. There will still be changes necessary for gays to get paternity recognized if their marriage is going to give them the same family benefits others enjoy.
Again, I'm not saying this, and the 700club ain't saying it, a gay legal defense organization is saying it.
By the way, what's your problem with polyamorists? Why is their ability to gain benefits for their children and partners "very loosely" a benefit?
quote:
We gays pay plenty in taxes, though, and I think we have just as much right to use the courts as does anyone else. Also, we're still talking about two-person marriage which makes it hard to see how the increase could be exponential.
We ALL PAY TAXES. Why should polyamorists not get the same use of the courts?
Your incredulity at being able to understand how monogamous marriage would increase the number of divorces, but saying that polygamy obviously would, points to a problem beyond being able to find stats.
The best you can say is that if polygamy is allowed, when a polygamous divorce case happens, there will be more litigants. Unless they are choosing to do each of their contracts separately? But then it is a number spread out just like any other set of divorce cases.
If A, B, and C decide to marry each other together, how would that result in any more cases of divorce, than if they all married others separately and then divorced? It makes NO logical sense, not even in the potential category.
The number of maximum divorce cases is limited by population, and those able to marry, not how many persons each of those able to marry, can marry. Unless divorce is removed... but then even the polygamists couldn't divorce.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
) anyway I must be normal and or genetic.... I mean I know I am straight I have known that since I was 11 or 12 (don't want to go into that) However the mere thought of Gay sex makes me SICK..... and yes.... I have tried to think about it..... it doesn't work well..... I CAN'T DO IT! So what makes anyone think they can change? I can't.... I mean I can't just wake up one day and say HEY I WANNA BE GAY! I doesn't work that way.... Now you take a crack at it! try to think about gay sex... if you can't my point has been made. So why has your God made them this way? please someone explain this to me
™ Version 4.2