Can you be anti-gay marriage

[Peikko 1,575]

The contract is legally voidable for any reason, not just marital infidelity. It also isn't automatically voided by infidelity; that requires action on the part of an injured party. Also, the adulterous party may divorce their spouse to marry their lover. In any case, the state will not prosecute anyone because it does not requie monogamy.

The state does not require anything, but the legality of the contract does. The marriage contract implicitly maintains a requirement of marital fidelity. What the state does not do is hold either party accountable for the infidelity as a binding aspect of the contract.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The state does not require anything, but the legality of the contract does. The marriage contract implicitly maintains a requirement of marital fidelity. What the state does not do is hold either party accountable for the infidelity as a binding aspect of the contract.

Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious contracts require marital fidelity. If you marry civilly, under the aupices of the state, there is no requirement for this. A legal contract requires three basic elements - offer, consideration and acceptance. The consideration is what the parties to the contract require, and they work that out between themselves. If a group of people marry each other, and they require fidelilty, they can have that expectation. There is nothing that bars them from doing that, and no punishment (except from God, if they believe) if they break that covenent.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Divorces are civil matters between the couple. Most state have no fault, these days, but there is still no generally implied requirement for monogamy, except between the parties. The state doesn't require it. Its interest in primarily in the disposition of property and the best care for any children involved.

The state wouldn't accept adultery as a grounds for divorce, then. And yet, they do.

[Peikko 1,575]

I can't see any point of marriage at all unless there is an implied expectation of fidelity. However, I am willing to accept that I could be wrong and that the civil marriage contract has somehow eliminated it, despite the fact that adultery can be cited as grounds for divorce, although I would be interested to know on what the contract is based in terms of the responsibilities of the parties. I still have a suspicion that there is a legal nicety implicit in marriage based on couples as apposed to pluralities though, which is why one is explicitly excluded from entering more than one contract at a time.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry for you, pup. The primary source of interpretation of laws is the intent of its authors, not a consensus of the population at any given time. The intent of the authors has established that there are not a gazillion religions to consider when interpreting that clause and all derivitives of it. You would lose any debate in first year law school putting forth that argument.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

As are you and neither are you.

So even if we're going to say that only one religion was represented by the founding fathers - even though that's clearly not the case as some of the founding fathers belonged to various denominations of the Protestant Church, some were Catholic and some were anti-clerical and vocal opponents of organized religion - then we're still left with the fact that the interpretation of the rights that all men are to have in this country has evolved since the nation was founded. As it is, this is really a side-track from the issue at hand which is that the founders held that 1) all men are created equal and 2) that each individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the God given rights). The founding fathers did not say anything about these God given rights only being extended to certain individuals. And that is what we're talking about - whether or not the right to marry can be denied to those that happen to be homosexual.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am also dubious in the extreme how one could set up a multiple contract that allows for every party in the marriage contract to have an equal voice - in a two person contract there is a de facto decision making process. If one person is incapacitated, the other one takes over. I don't see how that could be equitably provided for in a plurality. I know that people can cooperatively agree on any number of things when everything is going swimmingly, but contracts are there to guide us through when these contracts fall apart and that would be really difficult to adjudicate.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The state wouldn't accept adultery as a grounds for divorce, then. And yet, they do.

That is so in a few states, and not in others. But, they will not come into a marriage and enforce monogamy; they simply offer a means to adjudicate a divorce on those grounds.

Still, whatever are the grounds offered for a divorce, the bottom line is that there can be expectations of fidelity - or not- in plural marriage, that the parties in any marriage set the rules for themselves, that one or both parties can file for divorce at will.

It is the same for a marriage between two people or between six people. If the government is convinced that they are not to interefere in the private affairs between consenting adults, as stated in Lawrence, then they will be hard pressed to disallow polyamorous unions.

What would be your argument for disallowing them?

[Peikko 1,575]

The difficulty of adjudicating and enforcing equality of rights both during the enforcement of the contract and when the contract falls apart. There really is something very nice about a contract between two people that precludes discrimination.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The difficulty of adjudicating and enforcing equality of rights both during the enforcement of the contract and when the contract falls apart. There really is something very nice about a contract between two people that precludes discrimination.

Perhaps, but since contracts between multiple parties are made every day, that is an enormously weak argument in the face of individual privacy interpretations, the pursuit of happiness and the equality of due process arguments. The redefinition of traditional marriage by the inclusion of gay marriage, something without a heritage in our history, opens the door to polygamy and it opens it wide.

[Peikko 1,575]

If it can be done legally in a fashion that does not place any individual at a legally binding disadvantage, then I don't have a problem with plural marriage. The caveat is that those who enter into a marriage that is based on a notion of marital fidelity must not be disadvantaged by plurality. If that can be done, then sure, let rip.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If it can be done legally in a fashion that does not place any individual at a legally binding disadvantage, then I don't have a problem with plural marriage. The caveat is that those who enter into a marriage that is based on a notion of marital fidelity must not be disadvantaged by plurality. If that can be done, then sure, let rip.

Well, no contract can validate provisions that are already unenforcable under current laws, but people are always free to enter into contracts they regret later. And, anyone who enters a marriage expecting fidelity needs to understand that that promise is not only unenforcable under law, but only as good as the character of the person or persons making the promise. Short-sightedness and disappointment can happen in any marriage. Commitment includes risk, and no contract can eliminate it.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Perhaps, but since contracts between multiple parties are made every day, that is an enormously weak argument in the face of individual privacy interpretations, the pursuit of happiness and the equality of due process arguments. The redefinition of traditional marriage by the inclusion of gay marriage, something without a heritage in our history, opens the door to polygamy and it opens it wide.

I would have to agree that there is a certain basis for your argument here. The problem is that the plural marriage tradition, at least in biblical and Islamic traditions, stems for a tremendously backward view of women in society. Gender roles which are absolutely contrary to hundreds of years of evolution in terms of US law and modern day thinking.

As I have stated with regards to gay marriage, philosophically and realistically it affects my life, my own marriage, not at all. To the extent that plural marriages would philosophically and realistically also not affect my own marriage or own life either I would not be against them either per se. The problem is really one of the context in which persons entering plural marriages view these relationships very differently than marriages between couples. The same 'love' men and women can share in marriage, men and men, or women and women can share. That can't really be said for plural marriages. Especially in the biblical or Islamic sense.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Generally speaking - signing a contract doesn't mean its legally binding if the terms of it are fundamentally unfair.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would have to agree that there is a certain basis for your argument here. The problem is that the plural marriage tradition, at least in biblical and Islamic traditions, stems for a tremendously backward view of women in society. Gender roles which are absolutely contrary to hundreds of years of evolution in terms of US law and modern day thinking.

As I have stated with regards to gay marriage, philosophically and realistically it affects my life, my own marriage, not at all. To the extent that plural marriages would philosophically and realistically also not affect my own marriage or own life either I would not be against them either per se. The problem is really one of the context in which persons entering plural marriages view these relationships very differently than marriages between couples. The same 'love' men and women can share in marriage, men and men, or women and women can share. That can't really be said for plural marriages. Especially in the biblical or Islamic sense.

That is an issue - if you truly open it up to multiple partners you are essentially destroying the concept of marriage in a definable way. You might as well do away with it entirely - but even if you do that, it still doesn't address the fundamental conflicts that doing so creates with the law. You would have to rewrite those laws as well.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, do you not understand what I said regarding the implicit understanding of marriage as a sexually exclusive contract?

MAybe... and maybe you are living in the distant past.

Sex is only one benefit yet not a requirement, some people are unable to have sex at all!..... see Hunt for more details.