Text 11306, 108 rader
Skriven 2007-02-01 22:17:38 av Josh Hill (14744.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:15:39 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message=20
>news:2a70s21jlqe2lp41ii2ru34i59t8emf16r@4ax.com...
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:26:49 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>>>Marriage is a privilege by the simple example that the government sa=
ys
>>>>>that a man or woman can't marry 5 women (or 5 men or any
>>>>>combination thereof) concurrently.
>>>
>>>> I don't think that saying that banning the misuse of something makes
>>>>it a privilege. One can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, yet
>>>>freedom of speech is considered a right. And governments have often
>>>> been known to trample on rights.
>>
>>>You're begging the question of "misuse" aren't you?
>>>
>>>What is the defining difference that gives homosexual marriage a highe=
r
>>> right than polygamy among consenting adults?
>
>>The same defining difference that applies in the theater situation:
>>polygamy appears to be socially harmful, whereas homosexual marriage
>>doesn't.
>
>What statistics support your assertion that polygamy is socially harmful=
?
>I'm not advocating polygamy by any means, but you keep making
>statements without anything to support them.

>Where is the harm among consenting adults?

Seems to me you're applying a unique and unfair standard. How many
statements made by others here include references or statistics? I
daresay it's miniscule.

That being said, a careful reading will note that I did not assert
that polygamy is socially harmful, but rather that it /appears/ to be
socially harmful. I based that on a number of news accounts I've read
of the unfortunate social and economic consequences of present-day
Mormon polygamy (and, IIRC, at least one Usenet post). Apparently,
many of the brides end up living in poverty, off the state.

>>>>The simple fact that states feel they may not have to recognize a=20
>>>>marriage
>>>>from another state would also indicate fairly clearly that marriage
>>>>is a privilege.
>>>
>>> That would appear to be unconstitutional.
>>
>>I suspect we'll eventually see if the Supreme Court agrees.
>>
>>>
>>>>Marriage is official recognition of a a union, and it is up to the
>>>>"official body" to determine the requirements that it grants
>>>> that recognition under.
>>>
>>> That was never the definition of marriage.
>>
>>You're sidestepping the issue of definitions again.
>
>I was specifically referring to the past; you've included a number of
>definitions from the present.
>
>>Dictionary.com:
>>
>>mar=B7riage
>>      1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish t=
heir
>>decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious
>>ceremonies, etc.
>>
>>      <I would say this constitutes "Official recognition of a union">
>
><skipping other equivalents>
>
>
>>No, the absence of legal sanction [doesn't] imply anything except that =
it
>>doesn't have legal sanction. The judgment in this case is entirely
>>yours.
>
>Clearly not.  In MN two men can call themselves married but without
>the legal sanction, they aren't married.  If tghe legal sanction didn't =
mean
>anything, then gays would be arguing they're being deprived of
>meaningless rights.

They are married, according to the sense you snipped; the state has
simply seen fit to deprive them of the benefits it accords marriages
it feels like recognizing.

--=20
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [.=
..]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he dep=
arted.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)