Musgrave is asking Newsom if he supports polygamy

[rockymountaindem]

and he's just laughing at her. How awesome is that?

[Fenris]

1. Awesome, because that question is totally fucking asinine

:D

[stopbush]

15. When has polygamy ever been practiced among homosexuals?

I sort of thought that polygamy in the USA was restricted to Mormons in STRAIGHT relationships where a man took multiple wives. I mean, if you're gay, you haven't been allowed to marry, so how could you entertain thoughts of polygamy?

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. No it's not

Clearly, the definition of marriage in the U.S. is (right now) one man and one woman. If we are CHANGING the definition, then what is the new defintion and why?

[Cooley Hurd]

29. Simple - change the law to say "two PERSONS."

The polygamy argument is just a bugaboo thrown out by the fundies to further muddy the issue, but by writing the law to say "two persons" addresses it sufficiently.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Again, on what basis

We are changing this as a civil rights issue. Can't polygamists argue the exact same thing? They certainly will try.

[Cooley Hurd]

31. Let them... this has no bearing on gay people marrying...

All gay people want is to be in a monogamous relationship which, by definition, is between TWO people. If the law is written and limited to that dynamic, then it makes it perfectly clear.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. And it will immediately be challenged in court

And lose because we can't come up with a clear reason why two people. And if only two people? Why not brother and sister? Father and daughter?

In another thread, a while back, we crafted a version of the new definition. Even then right here on DU, some opposed excluding polygamy. So it ain't a closed issue.

[dawn]

37. Two consenting adults,

And not family members.

Why do people equate gays wanting to share the rights of straight couples bring up men marrying dogs, mothers marrying sons, and so on?

[outinforce]

41. Surely You Are Not Suggesting

Surely you are not suggesting that mothers marrying their sons or men marrying dogs would threaten gay people who are in monogamous married relationships, are you?

What is the danger, in terms of harm to society, in allowing incestuous marriages? or polygamous marriages? or even bestial marraiges?

YOU may happen to think that these sorts of marriages are "sick", or "perverted", or anything else -- rather like the most homphobic person who is revolted by the thought of two men in bed together. But why shouyld we discriminate amongst the various forms of love that people may have?

[bobbyboucher]

51. Another howler!

Men and dogs? You can see a paralell between the argument for "same sex" and the argument for "inter-species"? Don't go getting hysterical on us now.

[outinforce]

55. OK, Maybe Man and Dog...

I get your point.

But I hope you can see mine.

It is this: What harm comes to society from allowing people in non-traditional relationships (either because of the number of people involved in the relationship or because of the people within the relationship) to marry?

[noiretextatique]

76. none, outinforce

that's why conservatives are coming up with these assinine non-analogies, e.g. polygamy and bestiality. their underlying theme: gay = deviant.

[General Discontent]

86. Oh Really?

I like sheep personally. Don't laugh, you all ought to try it. It's not BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAd at all.... Hehe /sarcasm



DWolfman

[TankLV]

101. That is a ridiculuous argument. We are not talking about that.

The subject is confirring the same right of straight persons to marry to gay persons.

We are not talking about painting my bedroom, washing my car, or taking a vacation to Europe - which is as rediculous as talking about polygamy, incest or bestiality.

[outinforce]

105. I See

You get to decide what is appropriate for dicsussion here.

The subject of basic civil rights for people who may love more than one person is simply off the table, is that it?

The Title of thie thread contains the word "polygamy" within it.

How is it that you get to decide what is appropriate for discussion and what isn't?

Where can I go to get the "I Get to Decide What We Can Discuss" Card?

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. What is your rationale?

Why NOT polygamy? Why not incest? Certainly, if couples make no plans to have children, there is no harm to the gene pool if family members marry.

[knight_of_the_star]

73. Incest is different

Incest is proven to be not only psychologically traumatic but also damaging to the gene pool.

[outinforce]

78. Surely You Are Not Suggesting

that the purpose of marriage is sex.

If two relatives love -- truly love -- one another, then why is it any business of the state to say that they cannot be married?

You suggest that they might "damage" the gene pool.

Well, should we then have tests for all straight couples who wish to marry in order to ensure that the gene pool is not damaged? I can think of a few people (one is in the White House) who is no doubt a set of dmaaged goods when it comes to the gene pool.

And I am no expert on incest, but why would you prevent two consenting adults who happen to be relatives from getting married?

Why would you deny them their civil rights to marriage?

[TankLV]

102. We are not talking about polygamy, incest or other red herrings.

If you want to fight for those rights, that is your priviledge.

But that is not the subject of this matter.

The subject is gay marriage and limited to gay marriage only.

Nothing else.

[outinforce]

104. I Would Submit

I would respectfully submit that some of us are talking about re-defining the definition of marriage in such a way as to guarantee the basic civil rights of anyone who chooses to express her/his love in a non-traditional manner.

You, it would appear, are perfectly content to limit that discussion to a discussion of changing the definition of marriage in such a way as to guarantee the civil right of two -- and only two -- people to marry. Period. End of Story.

It may surprize yo to learn that for years many straight people argued that the definition of marriage was such that it was ridiculous to include, within any discussion of marriage, discussions about the rights of two people of the same gender to marry.

They wished to define marriage (and to limit discussion of marriage) in such a way as to exclude any discussion of any thing other than there own little rather narrow definition of marriage.

When anyone tried to exapnd the definition of marriage, they said something like this: "This discussion is about marriage, which of course means the marriage of a man and a woman. If you want totalk about other red herrings, do so, but this discussion is about marriage, and WE will decide who gets to be included and who doesn't.

And then they might say: Nothing Else.

As a gay man, I always found it rather heavy-hnaded when straights tried to exclude me from a discussion.

Now I find it a bit more hurtful when other gay folks (or people who think they are being gay-friendly) try to exclude me from a discussion.

[RapidCreek]

82. You really need to ask that question?

If you do you are beyond reasoning with. Because such a relationship has proven to result in genetically malformed offspring. It's called common sense.

RC

[outinforce]

85. Are You Actually Suggesting.....?

"Because such a relationship has proven to result in genetically malformed offspring. It's called common sense"

Are you actually suggesting that the government has the right to (and, if it has the right, that it actually should) prohibit some marriages because some might result in genetically malformed offspring?

Where do you draw the line on that right and power of government?

Should the government, for instance, be able to test African Americans who wish to marry in order to ensure that their marriages will not produce offspring with the genetic malformation of sickle-cell anemia?

DO yo ureally want the government regulating who may and who may not marry based upon the potential that some marriages might result in "genetic malformation" (whatever that is)?

[RapidCreek]

98. No

No test needs to be given to determine that a son procreating with a mother or sister....or a father with a daughter or sister results in genetic anomilies in offspring. That is a fact...Period. It has been proven over and over throughout history....in practice and by scientific analysis. Yes I do want my government regulating such unions.

I did not advocate, nor have I ever the government testing non related individuals genetic makeup prior to allowing them to marry.

If you'd like to learn a little about genetic malformation do a google search on Mongoloidism.

RC

[outinforce]

100. "Mongoloidism"

I understand that there are still some people who insist on calling Downs Syndrome "mongoloidism". I happen to have a nephew who has Down's, and his mother is hurt every time she hears that term.

That said, I wonder if you have any factual evidence to demonstrate your assertion that a son procreating with a mother or a father with a daughter is aloways going to result in genetic anomolies. I could be wrong, but I don't think that is the case. It is certainly more likely that two recessive genes may come together and cause some genetic defect, but isn't that always the case?

And it does rather sound to me as though you really do think the government should be in the business of doing what it can to prevent the birth of "mongoloids". "Mongoloids" are often born to people who are not related, except by marriage, to one another. Would you suggest that if a couple gives birth to one mongoloid child, that it would be acceptable for the government to forbid them from having any more children, unless they first consent to an amniocentesis -- to guarantee against any "genetically malformed" people being born?

It would seem to me that if you advocate government control and restriction in order to control the spread of mongoloidism, you would also want to see that parents of one child submit to government regulation in order to ensure that they have no more children with "mongoloidism".

[RapidCreek]

106. I don't insist on calling it anything

Down syndrome was referred to as Mongoloidism when it was first described in 1866 by the English physician John Langdon Down. I'm sorry if you find Mr. Downs terminology politically incorrect. I'll refer to it as Down's Syndrome if that makes you feel better.

That said, I wonder why you make continuous attempts to reframe my argument in terms which I never expressed. If you are incapable of debating honestly then perhaps you should refrain entirely as I, unlike the vast majority of Democrats, will call you on it every time.

I didn't say that an incestuous relationship is "always going to result in genetic abnormalities". You said I said that.

If you'd care to debate that which I actually stated I'll be more than happy to participate. Keeping this in mind you might care to try again and question exactly what I said. If you take this approach I'll answer your questions....anything less than that and I will ignore you entirely.

RC

[outinforce]

107. What You Actually Said

You have suggested that I misquoted you. TO be precise, here is the exact thing you said: "I didn't say that an incestuous relationship is "always going to result in genetic abnormalities". You said I said that."

Earlier, you said this: "No test needs to be given to determine that a son procreating with a mother or sister....or a father with a daughter or sister results in genetic anomilies in offspring. That is a fact...Period. It has been proven over and over throughout history....in practice and by scientific analysis.

Please excuse me for mis-interporeting what you said. It's just that with the "That is a fact....Period" and the "It has been proven over and over", etc. statements, and with the absence of any qualfiers, I thought that you were making a pretty emphatic statement to the effect that "a son procreating with a mother or a sister..or a fether with a daughter results in genetif anomolies in offspring".

That sounded pretty much like a statement that said that it always happened.

But, apparently I mis-interpreted your words. Sorry.

To re-phrase my question: Is your opposition to incestuous marriages based upon the possibility that such marriages might produce genetically malformed offspring?

You also say that you do want the government to regulate such unions, which I take to mean that you want the government to regulate incestuous marriages. Why, exactly, is that?

And if you oppose incestuous marriages because they could result in genetically malformed offspring, and if you want the government invovled in regulating those types of marriages because of the possibility of genetically malformed off-spring, then why is it, exactly, that you would not be in favor of government regulation of all marriages that could conceivably produce genetically malformed offspring?

I did not advocate, nor have I ever the government testing non related individuals genetic makeup prior to allowing them to marry.

[TankLV]

95. Because we are talking about gay marriage - nothing else..

We are not talking about all those other things.

If someone else wants to talk about those other things, no matter how ridiculous it is to the topic at hand - letting gay persons get married - then have a discussion about those other things.

The topic is gay marriage - not the changing the color of my bathroom towels, not naming my new puppy, not the choice of a new automobile.

It's just that simple.

That's how you answer these idiots.

[outinforce]

39. "All Gay People Want"???

Since the only thing I can see is the words you have written, and since I cannot hear the inflection you gave to these words, "All gay people want is to be in a monogamous relationship which, by definition, is between TWO people.", I do not know whether you intended to say that all of us who are gay want to be in monogamous relationships, or whether you meant to say that some gay people simply want to be in monogamouis relationships.

I am a gay man, and I really have no desire to be in a monogamous relationship. So, if you were saying that all gya people want monogamous relationships, you are quite simply wrong.

I have been invovled, in at least two separate occasions, with two other men at the same time. We were -- all three of us -- in love with each other. And, I might add, I know several men who are in these types of non-traditional relationships.

So how is it, exactly, that you are able to say what it is that gay people want? How can you say that gay people simply want to be in monogamous relationships? Are you willing to deny the acceptance that society gives to married people when it comes to gay people in non-traditional relationships -- deeply committed, loving relationships that invovled more than two people?

I do so wish that those who discuss this issue and who purport to speak for "all" of us gay folks would stop saying that the issue of polygamy is simply an issue dredged up by the right wing.

It is not.

It is an issue that a few -- a minority, if you will -- of us gay folks view as seriously as others view receiving the validation of society for their "traditional" (that is, monogamous) gay relationships do. If it is so important, in order to feel like you are equal, that society validate the relationship you have with just one other person (a la straight society), then why is it that those of us who reject monogamy as the paradigm for our expressions of love should not also feel less than equal when we are told that we should not be married?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[outinforce]

56. Do Tell

Thanks, bobbyboucher, for enlightening me on what "they" were discussing. If not for you, I would certainly not be able to comprehend the meaning of what someone else is saying. Where ever did you get this ability to interpret for others? It is SUCH a gift!

And thanks also for your words instructing me on just how it is that I should interpret things. It is always SO helpful to have people tell me that my perceptions are wrong.

But I do have just the teensiest, weensiest complaint that I would like to direct your way. I hope you don't mind.

You said, "You sure don't sound gay to me, by the way"

Please do tell me just how it is that gay guys are supposed "to sound".

DO I come across as too Butch for your taste when it comes to gay men? Or is it that you are unable to detect any lisp from the words I post here? Is it that I don't mouth the talking points of the HRC as though they were the equivalent of Darwin's theory of evolution?

What is it that I lack in order to "sound like a gay person"?

I hope you understand that this is a matter of extreme urgency for me.

My membership card in the "Gay Guy Fraternity" depends upon me being able to sound gay.

Would it help if I added the word "Mary" or "girlfriend" ever so often?

[kodi]

61. no, they can't.

the issue is that a person has a right to marry. not how many spouses one can have simultaneously.

these are distinct issues.

the issue of a right for adults to marry, like all rights is based upon the individual, with "inalienable" rights steming from personhood. rights by definition are not predicated upon the condition of another party and they are inherent, indivisible from the individual.

there are no constitutional pre-conditions for rights that stem from the conditions of another person, viz., the sex of another person.


john can marry jane, but not tom? john has an inherent right, the right to marry ONLY because of the sex of the other party?


then the right to marry is not predicated by the individual who gets married, but by the nature of the other party?

this turns on its head the very meaning of rights.

[outinforce]

62. Fine. But ----

You make a convincing argument for gay marriage.

The problem I am having, though, is that you seem to want to limit rights.

You define the issue as that of a person having the right to marry, and then go onto state that "the issue of a right for adults to marry, like all rights is based upon the individual, with "inalienable" rights steming from personhood. rights by definition are not predicated upon the condition of another party and they are inherent, indivisible from the individual."

You then give examples concerning John, Jane, and Tom.

But why doesn't the exact same argument apply to the number of people that a person can marry?

To paraphrase what you said: " then the right to marry is not predicated by the individual who gets married, but by the number of the other parties? this turns on its head the very meaning of rights."

[kodi]

67. your paraphrase is inconsistent with mine

"To paraphrase what you said: " then the right to marry is not predicated by the individual who gets married, but by the number of the other parties? this turns on its head the very meaning of rights."

note that in the case of gay marriage, the restriction is due to the nature of the other person, not oneself. for polyagamy to occur, a priori must be a state of being in the individual of already being married.

in other words: if he is not married, he can get married; if he is married he can not get married.

he cant marry again because he already possesses that state. this property is inherent in him, not another party (as the latter is cause for the basis for restrictions on gay marriage).

in this case, polyagamy, the condition of another person is not the predicate for rights. it is the person who is attempting to acquire more than one spouse, and it is his condition, not another's that leads to the limitation on personal rights.

in your paraphrase, the restriction is due to the number of persons that individual marries. it has nothing to do with the other party. the properties inherent in another adult are not the issue.


the issue of banning gay marriage is predicated on denying the rights of marriage because of another person's characteristics, not your own.

banning polyagamy places no such restriction on rights because of the characteristics of another person. the ban is placed because of the inherent condition of the one who wishes to marry again.

[outinforce]

70. Fine, except

Your argument seems to be predicated on the notion that in order for there to be a polygamous marriage, one of the people must already be married.

That is, I'm sure you will agree, not always the case.

For instance, suppose that two men and one woman, all currently unmarried, wish to marry each other. 3 people. One marriage.

I submit that denying these 3 people their civil right to get married is an act of irrational bigotry.

Don't you?

[kodi]

71. marriage is a contract, a contract between individuals, not groups.

you base your assumption on three (or more) parties to a marriage contract?

even such as you invent, there is a stepwise process where the woman in your example has to agree to a contract between her and each individual man.

the process does not afford a situation where a multitude of potential spouses lose their individualism and are considered groups in reference to a marriage contract. a marriage contract is between two individuals, not between groups or a group and individual people.

look at the semantics of the "marrying" phrase one would use in your scenario:

"do you jane, take john AND bill to be your lawfully wedded husbands?"

if she agrees, then semantically john precedes bill because the term "John AND Bill" are not defined as a group in this type of contract, thus there is a state of being where jane is married to john before being married to bill.

[outinforce]

74. Easy --

If the "sequencing" of contracts is what is hanging you up, then I would propose that whatever marriage ceremony unites three or more people into marriage be structured so that all the parties are asked the same questions at the same time.

In other words, the justice of the peace would say, "Do you, John, Jane, and Mary, take each other to be your life-partners, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, etc....".

Jane, John, and Bill woud answer, in unison "We Do!", and the contract would be complete.

Why do keep insisting that marriage is something only for two people?

Free your mind! Think outside the box! And understand that there truly are people who find love and joy in the context of multiple partners. Then understand how your parochial definition of marriage denies those people -- by its very definition -- their civil rights to be married.

[kodi]

90. you want to make marriage a group right, not merely an individual right?

in the context of the topic of marriage contracts, and contracts between individuals, my own so-called "parochial definition of marriage" and contracts is the legal one which has been referenced.

marriage rights fall under the penumbra of personal rights, not group rights.

if you wish to extend personal rights to group rights, then you have moved far away from the issue we first discussed, marriages between people of the same sex.

and you are demanding that the full rights granted to individuals be granted to groups?

sorry, but you will find that under the current constitution, individuals have rights that groups do not, regardless of the current judicial attitude that corporations have free speech rights, they do not (yet) have voting rights, nor can they marry.

but according to your "marrying" logic, General Motors could marry Microsoft, or the Daughters of the American Revolution could marry the Communist Party of America. after all, each are groups, are they not?

there is clear precedent that it is illegal for groups to be discriminated simply for the inherent properties of the members of the group, but there is also clear precedent that rights are granted to an individual that are not granted to groups.

but i wish to respond to that which i consider a personal attack by you.

Free your mind! Think outside the box! And understand that there truly are people who find love and joy in the context of multiple partners. Then understand how your parochial definition of marriage denies those people -- by its very definition -- their civil rights to be married.

my mind is certainly free, a lot freer than you could ever imagine, and free enough to accept a world in which the private sexual acts of adults, even acts which i may find personally repugnant, are no concern of mine. and also free enough to accept polygamy, but i can't defend its right to exist the same way i can defend marriage between two people of the same sex.

its that simple. don't you get it?

apparently you don't. because you smeared me with not being astute enough to accept other possibilities.

in the course of your remarks you are clearly not talking about simply marriages between people of the same sex, but are demanding that a person be able to marry more than one person at a time, and have stated in your words of "your parochial definition of marriage denies those people -- by its very definition -- their civil rights to be married. that marriage MUST include by definition the possibility of at least three individuals.

you are demanding that your rights are denied because of the restriction on the number of people you are allowed marry, not, as in the rights delineated by DOMA, because of the sex of the person you want to marry.

these different restrictions are not the same thing, nor is a debate upon the issue of your proposed rights in this matter based upon the same premise as the inherent right to marry one of your own sex.

if you want to help your cause, point to the Old Testament where polygamy was legal (even with all those commandments flying around) and ask your adversaries to explain why the God of Abraham allowed polygamy, but not George Bush.

see what they say.

and have a nice day.

[outinforce]

93. Sorry .

I am sorry, kodi, for it appears that my comments made you feel as though I had insulted you. I had no desire to do that.

Let me start with an acknowledgement of what you say -- that marriage is a contract between (I would suggest among) individuals.

You suggest that marriage, since it involves individuals, can only occur between two individuals.

I still do not see why that is the case. I do not see why three or more individuals cannot agree to a mutual commitment of love and deovtion. Three of more people agreeing -- all at the same time -- to commit themselves in this way is still the action of three or more individuals.

The fact that they constitute what you or I might call a group is really beside the point. I could just as easily suggest that two people constitute a "group" of two.

And I fear we really are talking past each other.

There are some (and you are not one of them) who say that marriage ought to be a union of two -- and only two -- two people, and that those two people have to be of opposite gender. This is, for most people, the legal definition of marriage.

There are some (and I think you are one of these folks) who say that this definition of marriage should be changed -- as a matter of civil rights -- so that marriage is still the union of two -- and only two -- people and that the gender of those two people is of no concern.

My argument is that if there is a basic civil right to marriage, why is that basic right to be confined to two -- and only two -- people?

YOu have, I think, suggested that it is because marriage is somehow restricted top two and only two people.

I just don't understand why that needs to be the case. Individuals marry. Why can't three or more individuals agree jointly to marry?

[kodi]

97. i can't defend polygamy like i can gay marriages

that's all.

it is more difficult to defend polygamy than homosexual marriage because the former restrictions are predicated upon the social conditions of the individual, and the latter is predicated upon inherent rights of the individual.

in the 21st century, one can more easily argue that rights are inherent, than argue a social condition doesn't matter.

but, oddly, it is interesting that there is more historical evidence to show the social acceptance and value of polygamy than there is that homosexual marriage should be a right.

and this really is the fulcrum in the current culture war waging: viz., the battle is being fought between conservative social conventionists and progressive advancers of human rights.

[outinforce]

99. Let Me Be Sure I Understand You

I want to be certain I understand your argument here.

I think I hear you saying that since you can't defend polygamy like you can defend gay marriages, that is reason enough for people who find deep committment and love in more than one person to be denied their civil rights to marriage.

I hope that this is not what you are saying, but I can see no other possibility, given the words you have posted.

I still do not really understand your objection. You say, "t is more difficult to defend polygamy than homosexual marriage because the former restrictions are predicated upon the social conditions of the individual", but I really do not understand why this is so.

Take two unmarried people. Neither are married, so neither of them is in the social conditon of being married. But both have an inherent right to be married.

Now take three people. None of them are married, so none of them is in the social condition of being married. All three have an inherent right to be married. All three -- mutually and at the same time -- committ their lives to one another in front of an appropriate officer of the law. They all change -- at the same time -- from the social condition of not being married (but with the inherent right to be married) to the social condition of being married (all three to each other).

What am I missing? Why does this not satisfy your need to argue the inherent rights of people?

[arrogantatheist1000]

92. EXACtly bro, I'm tired of bigotry against polygamists too

Why does some religious weenie get to say whether you can marry multiple people or not. If you dont' want to marry mutliple people then don't.

As for the benefits for marriage being extended to multiple people, well its an argument to DITCH THAT IDIOTIC idea that single people have to give married people benefits.

Who came up with that. Sounds like a psycho religious right winger, that wanted to institionlize their sick idea of how humans should be together.

We need to torpedo these idiotic benefits and let people marry who they want. ONLY ONE THING NEED APPLY. Consenting adults. Thats IT.

Anything else is some psycho religious nazi enforcing their will on other americans.

Some americans love to live in groups of like 10, GOOD FOR THEM, if it makes them happy if THEY enjoy it, wtf is peoples problems with that.

Is it jealousy? When I had 3 gf at the same time everyone was ragging on me about how what I was doing wasn't christain. I told them screw off I don't believe in your silly idolatry.

Most women would rather be a second or third or fourth wife of a STALLION who can give them UBER genetics, then some losers only wife.

YES they would want to be the STALLIONS only wife but they are of course taken. Please say you guys understand evolution and the rationales behind this!

Don't believe this hollywood bullshit about romance and some poor loser nothing romancing some goddess. THOSE ARE MOVIES. FICTIOn...

How about the government screw off homosexuals, polygynists, polyanderers, tribe marriages, ALL OF THEM> ANYTHING LESS IS SICK PSYCHO RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY.

And How about the government screw off making single people have to pay for married or common law or whatever peoples benefits. My poor single friends who aren't buff actualy have to subsidize these fuckers, and thats sick too. Let them live their life how they want, that is the WHOLE point of america.

If you want some psycho religious idiot telling you how to live your life GO to IRAN or SUDAN, it shouldn't be happening in the great 'BEACON' of freedom america.

[outinforce]

94. Ummmmm........

You certainly have had some interesting experiences.

I'm not so sure I agree with everything you suggest concerning evolution and the desire of some women.

But it is also quite possible that I do not really understand the points you are trying to make. You and I obviously attended different high schools.

[Deb-Ter]

72. but look at it from the other side

If I wanted to mary someone that was already married then I would not be able to because of the 'condition' of the other person. That person is married therefore you cannot marry him...

Once the diffinition is changed to include one group, it WILL be expanded to include 'every' group.

[ProfessorGAC]

87. Unbrilliant

You should look up the word syllogism.
The Professor

[kodi]

96. nice to see you again prof. shall we skewer that deadly syllogism

first, social "conditions" of an individual are not the same thing as "inherent" properties found in the individual, viz., say "inalienable rights" for instance.

a man may be in a social "condition" of poverty, but he is not "inherently" poor.

nor is the color of one's skin a simply a social "condition." it is an "inherent" property of the individual.

nor is the sex of a person a social "condition." it is an "inherent" property of the individual.

while the right to marry is an inalienable, inherent right of individuals and should not be restricted, the state of "being married" is a social condition.

restricting polygamy is based upon a social condition of the individual, and not based upon an inherent property of the individual.

restricting homosexual marriage is not based upon a condition.

hell, it's not even based upon an "inherent" property of the individual.

no, it is based upon an "inherent property" of another individual.

and that is ...... well, pretty damned inconsistant.

[scottxyz]

42. It's now TWO ADULTS...

...as it has been in Nature and Humanity for all ages (except that little abberration during the last few thousand years when one species invented Religions that nearly destroyed the Planet).

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Nope, now it is man and wife

Not TWO adults. There are limitations beyond that. There is the incest limitation as well.

[scottxyz]

64. I meant what's proposed is now "two adults"

You can rest easy. There aren't any precedents yet where legal frameworks intended for two adults got twisted into "an adult and a dog" or "an adult and a toaster".

Your slippery-slope arguments are bogus.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. They aren't bogus

Changing marriage is a big deal. Though I support it, I want to make it clear what we are changing it to and NOT give judges a chance to change it to include something more.

[scottxyz]

68. To make it clear, as I said

include language saying it's for TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

This should eliminate any worries about people marrying their dogs or their toasters or 70 virgins.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. No dispute there

However, the law would have to cover incest as well.

I suggest we come up with a counter amendment that makes marriage between two consenting (nothing closer than second cousin) adults.

That would eliminate any talk of polygamy or incest and make it just about equal rights.

[Deb-Ter]

79. what's proposed now is 'two adults'

that doesn't mean that it will stay that way. Once it has been changed to two adults, what will keep it from being changed to 2 or more adults. I understand what you are saying, I don't equate the two, what I'm saying is that somebody will, it will be contested that their 'rights' are being violated.

Either the definition remains constant and unchainged and we create 'Civil Unions' for gays to have the same legal protections as married people or we change the definition of 'marriage'. If we change the definition, it will be open to attack from everyone that wants to include their 'group'.

There has already been a case of a man filing suit in court for polygamy and using the Supreme Court stike down of the sodomy law in Texas as the starting point, along with Mass. courts ruling.

It is just human nature to push the envelope further and further.

[noiretextatique]

77. man and wife...

one of the many problems i have with marriage, as we know it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

108. Muddle...

...sometimes you can be really very insensitive.

I am an incest survivor. I do not want the right to marry the person who RAPED me as a fucking child. However, I do want the right to marry the woman I love.

You really have no idea sometimes what your words do to a child abuse survivor.

[Bandit]

63. If that was "Clearly the definition" then why a Constitutional Amendment?

It Clearly is not the definition. The definition is two people joined in a union. Two people not ten or three but two. Nowhere does it Clearly say only a man and a woman. The Constitution is also plain about this. It says all citizens will be treated equally. It does not say all Heterosexual citizens will be treated equally. That is what the wing-nuts want to change our constitution to say. and IMHO they are Clearly wrong.

[drdigi420]

75. noone is changing the definition

we are just advocating that the exact same definition be applied to ALL adult couples, regardless of gender

[outinforce]

83. I'm Sorry

But changing "man and woman" to "two adults" does in fact change the definition of marriage. To say otherwise is, in my view, to deny the revolution that is going on here. It is also to deny the opportunity that presents itself to radically change the definition of marriage in such a way as to be truly inclusive.

[RapidCreek]

81. Guess I miss your point

If the definition of marraige in the US is clearly a contract between one man and one woman..why is Bush seeking a constitutional amendmant to define marriage as such? Obviously it is not clear.

RC

[Sticky]

2. It's the fundie talking point

Equating gay marriage and perversion. I saw Jerry Falwell doing the same thing earlier tonight.

[DoctorMyEyes]

5. We've gotta have a better response

than to call polygamy a "perversion", or as I heard the president of HRC say - that she doesn't "approve of it".

Those are the same things the fundies opposed to gay marriage use.

I just say (and I'm sure there are other and better ways to say it) that those are two different issues and that I'm not going to entertain this "slippery slope" argument, since that's not the issue we're addressing, and I know nothing about a "polygamist movement".

on edit: I'm a butthead who read your post too quickly. RIF - Reading IS Fundamental! LOL Sorry!

While I'm editing, I want to include this definition of the Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy. I'm hoping we start calling this every time we hear it.

Fallacy: Slippery Slope
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
2. "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
3. "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
4. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[distortionmarshall]

11. here's a betterr response.....

...along the lines of what's been suggested.....

Q1: Do you support polygamy?

A1: How is polygamy relevant to gay marriage?

Q2: Don't try to duck the question.

A2: You didn't bring me on this show to talk about footlockers, phone calls, polygamy, or anything else relevant to gay marriage. You brought me here to talk about gay marriage, and I think it's a very important civil rights issue. Do you not find anything important about gay marriage?

The point of this line of response is to FORCE the interviewer to either (a)come out of the closet and admit that they're lumping polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and/or beastiality together, or (b) drop it altogether. The above seems like a reasonably graceful and truthful way of achieving the goal...

[DoctorMyEyes]

18. I like yours!

I hope to see more people putting the debate back on track like that!

[outinforce]

40. Danger, Will Robinson!

There is, I think, from your point of view, a real danger to responding to this question in the manner in which you have suggested.

You leave off the questioning too early.

Let me suggest that a really quick-witted interviewer could follow-up A2 as follows:

Q3: You are only partially correct. I brought you onto this program to discuss civil rights and marriage. You appear to wish to limit those civil rights to gay people involved in the most traditional types of relationships, namely those involving only two people who are not related by blood. But if it is truly a civil rights issue, then why is it, in your view, that gay people who may be in love with two or even three other people should be denied their civil right to be married?

[fob]

48. Here's a (IMO) brilliant response from DUer Mike Niendorff

"Let me be clear: it is emphatically *not* the role of government to provide official pronouncements on 'the meaning of marriage'. Such matters of the heart are not the province of the state, nor should they be made the province of the state by those seeking to reap political gain by dividing Americans against each other.

"Under our Constitution, the role of the state in this matter is simply this : to ensure to all of our citizens -- all of our fellow Americans -- are guaranteed the full and equal protection of our law. It is not our government's role to usurp the authority of the church by declaring what a "marriage" is or is not, just as it is not the state's role to demand adherance to one man's religion or rejection of anyone else's.

"And yet here we have the Republican Party now commanding the state to march into the halls of religion, and demanding that the state issue official rulings on matters of private religious faith. This road is so antithetical to the American way, so violently opposed to all that America stands for, that only a fool would misconstrue it as 'traditionalist' or, even worse, mislabel it as 'patriotic'.

"Furthermore, it is the height of hypocrisy for George W. Bush and his supporters to pontificate about 'limited government' while at the same time proposing a government that expands so far as to *supplant America's churches* as the final authority on matters of personal belief.

"What I propose here is very simple, so let me be perfectly clear. I propose that the American government remain true to its heritage : that it *stay out* of matters such as the "meaning of marriage", and other matters best left to theologians, philosophers and the clergy. I propose that the American government remain true to its promise : that legal rights and privileges offered to *any* American must be offered to *all* Americans.

"Our government may not pick and choose catagories of citizens, designating some as 'first class' and other as 'second class'. Such a system may be called many things, but it *cannot* be called "American".

"This country belongs to all of us. We are all Americans. We are all in this together.

"And you can rest assured that I, John Kerry, will not stand by and watch as scores of my fellow Americans are left behind, written off simply as 'casualities of politics'. That is unacceptable, and America is better than this. Are you listening, George W. Bush? America is better than this. And America deserves better than you."

-----



MDN


This was Mike's version of what John Kerry's response SHOULD have been. I think it's quite brilliant and leaves any questioner with hat in hand.

100 DUmerits to Mike!

[calimary]

58. Or maybe, you OUT her.

While watching her on "Larry King" last night, I had this fantasy of me (of all people) being on there with her and getting the giggles on the air. What I'd say to her at that point would be rather Oprah-ish - like "GIRLFRIEND! My GOODNESS, but aren't we fixated on this polygamy smokescreen!" Giggle some more, and then out her talking points. "AHH, I see you got the memo with the latest issue of talking points, because you're hitting all the obvious, ridiculous, over-the-top, scare the voters phrases like "polygamy," "group marriage," and the EVER-POPULAR "activist judges! GREAT job, Marilyn! I know Karl's pleased 'cause you mind him SO WELL! Attagirl! Gimme a high five!" Giggle some more.

LAUGH at them. EXPOSE their machinery and laugh at it. OUT their buzzphrases as just what they are - knee-jerk, manipulative button-pushers. Add generous doses of ridicule. It'll take some of the wind out of their sails, and the VERY next time some other bush-bot hauls out the same mindless buzzwords and buzzphrases, that OUTING will stick in the mind, too.

Especially if enough of us CALL 'EM ON IT!!!!

[Sticky]

12. There are no victims in gay marriage

if both people are consenting adults....therefore it's not fair or reasonable to compare gay marriage to polygamy, incest and beastiality which is exactly what these pro-bush people are doing.

[arewethereyet]

14. where are the victims in polygamy ?

that could easily be a percieved issue as opposed to a real one.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

20. Polygamy Abuse - hmmm, part of the Utah Dem platform...

http://www.polygamyinfo.com/media%20plyg%20145des.htm

Utah Demos: Fight `Polygamy Abuse'

BY DAN HARRIE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

The head of Utah's Democratic Party called Monday for $2 million in state
initiatives to combat crimes sometimes associated with polygamy, including
bolstering enforcement of abuse laws and building domestic-violence shelters.
Democratic leader Meghan Holbrook said the recommendations to curb
``polygamy abuse'' represented official party position. She unveiled the initiatives
during a debate with Republican Party Chairman Rob Bishop before the Junior
League of Salt Lake City.

[arrogantatheist1000]

88. Exactly, too bad most americans are too immature to even talk of it

-

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Two points

1) How is it we don't acknowledge the slippery slope argument except when it applies to OUR issues. Of course, it never applies to gun issues or other things THEY want. But ANY law against abortion and the slippery slope argument trots on out.

Sorry, slippery slope IS a reality.

2) We are redefining marriage. Once we do that, we need a new definition of marriage -- what it is and why or why not that same definition can't be used to include as many people as wish to marry one another.

[SerpentX]

33. "We are redefining marriage"

Redefining marriage isn't necessary. Just take the definition out of the government's hands and allow equal access to the civil benefits and responsibilities.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. That's legalese for what I said

You are talking about changing the way marriage is done in the U.S. That is terrifying to some and, being realistic, opens up the whole can of worms as to definitions.

[NewJeffCT]

47. my response would be

People are BORN gay, just like they are born white, black, Asian or Hispanic. People are not born polygamous and they are not born wanting to have sex with horses, dogs or sheep. Besides, animals do not have the same legal standing as humans.

[rockymountaindem]

3. He's shaking his head and laughing

all over the place. Musgrave is a jerkwad and is humilliating my state. I'm sooooo depressed. Yeah, like bringing up polygamy is "taking the argument to its logical community". What a jerk. Plus, some guy who described himself as a "hard-core republican" just called and said that Musgrave is waaaayyy wrong that that he is doing everything he can to DEFEAT Bush*! That's nice.

[cally]

4. Yep.

Thank you Newsom. What a great advocate! He's making Musgrave look like the idiot she is.

[countmyvote4real]

9. Musgrave is doing the best job of making

herself looking like an idiot.

<gotcha> :-)

I can't stand her.

[Razoor]

6. I saw it

I got Larry King on and just saw it. First time I saw Musgrave she must be really messed up in the head to ask that question about polygamy relating to Gay marriage. Also about the Hard Core republican that called in I was suprised to see that he said he would do anything to see * defeated in november glad to see more republicans dumping *. I hope this backfires in Musgraves face!

[rockymountaindem]

7. This should bolster the "liberal media" lie.

There don't seem to be any callers challenging civil unions/gay marriage. The Freepers must be jumping all over the place.

On edit: Larry King is giving Musgrave and MacArthur a hard time too. Suh-weet.

[Must_B_Free]

8. a gay man marries a lesbian

is it still a "gay marriage?"

[seabeyond]

10. she really looked the fool.

wink

[soleft]

38. I can unequivacally answer that as no

[Vogon_Glory]

13. Are There Jack Mormons In Colorado? Do They Vote?

Just for grins, I'm wondering if there are any Mormon splinter communities in Colorado who DO practice polygamy, and I'm wondering how THEY feel about being used as a target of abuse by right-wing Republican/"Conservative" talking heads?

[LiviaOlivia]

23. A Jack Mormon has nothing to do with polygamy

a Jack Mormon is a Mormon by birth or conversion who no longer
attends or participates in church activities, and smokes, drinks, etc.
A backslider.

[Vogon_Glory]

24. My Boo--Boo, I Shouldn't Take Edward Abbey As

My boo-boo, I shouldn't take Edward Abbey as an authority on the LDS and its spin-offs and backsliders.

But are there breakaway Mormons who do practice polygamy in Colorado?

[LiviaOlivia]

50. There is a wacko group in Colorado City, Arizona

n/t

[LiviaOlivia]

65. P.S. With all due respect to the great Mr. Abbey

I speak from personal experience that is being a Jack Mormon myself.

[Bake]

16. These people are going to be on the "wrong side of history."

I read an editorial today -- found it on Buzzflash -- that used that term, and it just made so much sense. These people are going to be on the wrong side of history. Everything that Puke congresswoman said, I just kept thinking to myself, "they said the same thing during the Civil Rights struggle in the 1960s." Think about it:

1. She says, "It's not right to break the LAWS and then challenge them in court." But that's just what was done in the 60s, to great effect! There were crappy Jim Crow laws that NEEDED to be violated and then challenged, just like there are some crappy unconstitutional laws today!

2. She says something about the "majority rules." Yeah, the majority of white people in the 60s thought everything was just fine back in the 50s, too!

I got so sick of it that I just stopped making the analogy. But it was so apt -- and these people, history will show years from now, are on the wrong side of this issue!

Bake

[graywarrior]

17. I'm so happy with this topic

When is the last time I even thought of polygomy? or beastiality? or even group sex? What in hell do these people sit around and think about all day. Obviously, having sex with animals!
Marilyn proved to the entire world what an uptight, cold-hearted, mean spirited, hateful un-christian viper she is. She did nothing to prove her pitiful cause.
I can't imagine what dinner is like at her house. How'd she get pregnant anyhow?

[yellowdog]

19. This is so asinine.

The fundies keep equating gay marriage with polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and everything else you can think of. I firmly believe homosexual orientation is there from birth, not a matter of choice. I really do not believe this about any of the other things I mentioned. I guess to a conservative if you are born gay you should quite properly spend the rest of your life alone. These people are sick beyond belief.

[rockymountaindem]

21. Now imagine a whole city filled with them.

That's Colorado Springs.

[arrogantatheist1000]

36. Yes slippery slope arguments are ridiculus child like arguments

Its disgusting comparing gay marriage to pedophilia.

Its the same as saying we shouldn't allow heteros together, because of child molestors who molest girls.

As for polygamy. WHY shouldn't we be allowed to marry 10 women if we want.

Whose god damn right is it to tell me I can't marry 10 women??????????????????????????

Who died and made them god. I'm sorry if they are to poorly endowed to be able to handle 10 women, don't ruin my fun though!!!!!

Actualy for a while I had 3 girlfriends at the same time who all knew about each other, and it was a huge turn on for them, knowing that I was sleeping with other women right in front of them. Jealousy can be a huge turn on if done right.

And I'm an equal opportunity polygamist for a while I was with a woman who had 2 husbands and 2 boyfriends at the same time. DAMN She was good too. It was hella good!

Right now I'm with one girl, but if I wanted to marry 10 women why can't I. Why does some religious weenie have the right to tell me what I can and can't do anyway?

And this doesn't even begin to go on why single people have to support married people. Who the hell came up with that?? Some of my single friends aren't that buff and so on, so have trouble meeting women, why the @#$#$ do they have to subsidize married people? Don't married people gay or straight get enough, they already have met their partner?

My poor damn friends are just trying to meet people and yet they have collosal taxes to pay holding them back and making them work longer (hence less time to meet and be with lovers) just so they can subsidize married people.

What freaking century are we in? Isn't america about freedom and not having to submit to some religious weenie's rules and paying his stupid taxes?

[yellowcanine]

46. "Slippery Slope Arguments" are recognized as a logical fallacy.

In debating events, you lose points for resorting to slippery slope arguments. It is recognized as a logical fallacy.

[lumpy]

57. Marriage isn't just about sex

At least with normal people.

[arrogantatheist1000]

89. MAybe your a cuckhold?

sex is a huge part of relationships and marriage.

If its not good sex it breaks bottom line.

We are sexual beings not some sort of automotans. Everyone I have ever met that got divorced, the sex sucked.. everyone who is married still is loving their partner. Yes love is part of a relationship to, and sex builds love.

Maybe someone likes polygamy for more then just sex too?

Frankly a lot of these left wingers who claim to be so for gay rights, are bigoted against polygamists.

If you are bigoted against polygamy, why do you criticize the extreme right wing religious psycho fanatics for being bigoted against gay marriage --- same logic. Although I'm sure some in this party will try to make up some weak excuse why its different.

[outinforce]

91. Welcome to DU

Welcome to DU.

I hope you do not mind if I offer you some friendly advice.

In my humble opinion, you made a couple of good points in your post.

However, also (it seems to me) insulted the poster to whom you were responding.

Additionally, you suggested that "this party" is somewhat deficient.

My own view is that it is possible to make the points you make without either insulting someone or suggesting that the Democratic Party is deficient.

A wiord to the wise......

[donco6]

22. Musgrave was at a rally in Denver the other day.

Big group of protesters. Best Sign: Stop Mad Cow (with picture of Marilyn).

[varun]

28. Remember the Dont Blame Me, I voted Bush signs...

..after Clinton got elected?

Well, at a Gay Pride march in Atlanta, I saw:

Dont blame me - I EAT bush.

[otohara]

34. She Looks Hateful

it's embarrassing - CO used to be a lot more liberal - I remember when we voted NO on brining the olympics here - due to enviormental concerns' - that would not happen in today's greedy CO

[Old and In the Way]

25. I'm not up on my Bible, but weren't some of the early Biblical

patriachs also polygamists? I seem to recall scripture readings in mass talking about that. So why would Jerry have a big problem with that...the Bible's infallible, right?

[donco6]

35. Absolutely

David - not only a polygamist, but he had the husband of a woman killed so he could add her to his harem (Bathsheba - mother of Solomon). And he was a man "after God's own heart." Talk about family values!

Of course, Solomon, too. It was very common for kings to have concubines.

[Brotherjohn]

43. He was right to call her on the red herring, BUT...

... he could have (and should have) easily addressed it, and torn it to shreds, with an easy reply:

"Is polygamy legal? No? Then there's no equal protection concern here, it there? There's no discrimination. The law treats everyone equally with regards to polygamy... it's illegal for everyone."

[yellowcanine]

44. We need the picture of the two 80 yr old lesbians

getting married in San Francisco after being together for 50 years. Then we print a caption on the bottom of the picture saying "THIS is what you are AFRAID of, Mr. Bush?"

Then print them up and send copies to the White House and all of the congress critters and senators.

[seabeyond]

59. as two cops go thru my 5 year old boys

back pack at the airport..........and both boys eyes are huge, i say why the cops, to protect searcher from you. i tell jonas, ah isnt this the silliest, look at these big people and they are all afraid of little ole you. took the fear away and put him into giggles.

[ButterflyBlood]

45. ha good

laughing is the only way to reply to the immense stupidity of her.

[kodi]

60. he should have said: "well, dear, your husband got away with beastiality"

.

[noiretextatique]

80. it's the perfect response to such hysterical idoicy

:toast: good on him!

[barbaraann]

84. Yoohoo! Ms. Musgrave--what are you doing about polygamy?

There are polygamists all over Utah, Idaho, and some other places out west including IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD and they not only get away with it they sometimes collect welfare!

If I were a government agent I could easily identify a few thousand polygamists a year. It's not rocket science.

[Nikia]

103. I never saw the connection

Marriage is between two consenting adults. It is a legal contract between the two. The only change to the law requires that sex of the two people not be a factor.
Polygamy would require a whole new set of laws. Currently marriage contracts are a reciprocal two person agreement. There would have to be a separate set of laws to accomodate multiple marriage partners. We would probably be treading on unfamiliar territory. Even though there are polygamous cultures, I do not believe in any of them are the sexes considered equal before the law. That can make a big difference.