Text 11312, 142 rader
Skriven 2007-02-01 22:51:02 av Carl (14750.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4ja5s2prk1fbjdmnqjuftvpbksptoi597f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:15:39 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>>>Marriage is a privilege by the simple example that the government says
>>>>>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 higher
>>>> 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.

I don't think it's unfair at all.  You've asked me for a cite in the past on 
several issues.  Many of the topics discussed here have
been covered before and stats or cites have been offered.

If you make an assertion (or even a strong implication) that something... 
anything.. is socially harmful, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what 
the basis for that statement is.  If you have no underlying statistic or 
evidence that polygamy is socially harmful, then I consider this to be 
simply your opinion (no negative intended by the word "simply").  If there 
is such evidence, I weigh that in my consideration of the topic.  If you 
consider this unfair of me, then we have different standards for such a 
discussion.  I  am only asking for more information.

Getting back to the issue... one could make the argument that the way in 
which many news stories have portrayed the gay community in general (and 
with respect to AIDS in particular), one could...and I suspect many had... 
come to exactly the same conclusion about gays being socially harmful.  That 
doesn't make it so.

Again, I'm not arguing for polygamy... but no one has expressed a specific 
reason why the two situations (gay marriage/ polygamy) are so different when 
the argument often centers around the behavior of consenting adults.


>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.

OK, then a careful reading of the question and your answer answer indiates 
that your opinion is that "...the defining difference that gives homosexual 
marriage a higher right than polygamy among consenting adults" is only the 
*appearance* of social harm.  One infers from your words that the majority 
does not perceive the appearance of social harm from gay marriage (thereby 
creating the distinction).

I would argue that the fact that the majority of every state that has 
brought the issue to a vote seems to disagree with you
implies that there is sufficent *appearance/perception* of social harm to to 
fall into the same category as polygamy based on the standard you've given..

> 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.

As do many brides of a monogamous marriage.  Of course the news (being the 
sensation driven beast that it is) is not likely to have stories about happy 
polygamous families.


>>>>The simple fact that states feel they may not have to recognize a
>>>>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·riage
>>      1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish 
>> their
>>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 the 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.

They are not legally married (except possibly in MA pending the inevitable 
legal challenge).   The social institution stated in the definition above 
has not granted them the privileges of legal status or established the 
validity of the legal contract.

For this part of the discussion I think it's time to jump off the 
merry-go-round. Ok?
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)