Romney: Marriage is between one man and one woman

[_Shulem]

And should each such birth certificate have listed on it the name of the child's biological birth father?

What do you think a birth certificate is, Kevin? Jesus Christ. It tell who was born and when -- and lists the father and mother too. So, to answer your question: Yes.

I think your response about whether a woman should be able to marry two men was pretty wishy washy but that's how you see it. So, does it become law? If men can marry 2 women than the law must allow women to marry two men. Fair is fair.

Paul O

[_KevinSim]

Oh, I saw that but you didn't express whether you approved or not. But I give it as my opinion that women in general are not interested in having multiple husbands, hence, your speculation that the numbers would even out is not good math.

Paul, you might be right about my math, but neither one of us has done anywhere near a scholarly projection of what would likely happen if polygamy were legalized, so it's premature for anyone to accept your opinion as solid fact, and use it to decide which types of marriage should be legal and which shouldn't.

But even if it could be established that, given polygamy's legalization there would be more man-two-women marriages than woman-two-men marriages, that still doesn't make your point.

Gay marriage has become legal in a few states; what do the statistics say? Is the number of pairs of gay men that get married in those states precisely the same as the number of pairs of lesbians that get married? I kind of doubt it's precisely the same. If there are more men-men marriages, then that would result in a shortage of men that could be married to women, and by your logic therefore men shouldn't be allowed to marry men; alternately, if there are more woman-woman marriages, then that would result in a shortage of women that can be married to men, and therefore by your logic women shouldn't be allowed to marry women.

Besides, men are not keen on sharing a woman with each other. There would be fights and nothing but trouble with sticking two straight men in a house with a single woman. Just think of it! Would you do it? Yes or no?

No, I wouldn't do it. So what? I wouldn't marry another man either. We're talking about what types of marriage should be legal, not what types of marriage each of us personally wants to enter into.

I think there are a lot of men out there that would take two wives (perhaps even YOU?) if allowed and over the course of a couple generations there would be a lot of polygamy.

I have no desire to "take two wives," even if my wife would stand for it (which she most certainly would not).

There would be less women in the pool for other men to choose from because of all the polygamy.

Paul, what you leave out is that while you may be right that "there are a lot of men out there that would take two wives," whether each's pair of spouses would accept the arrangement is a completely different story. The vast majority of women want monogamy, and wouldn't accept an arrangement where they had to share a spouse if there was any chance at all that they could get a spouse that they didn't have to share.

As it stands right now, there are many people who marry but even in our monogamous society there are many men who stay single and many women who also stay single. My own personal experience leads me to the conclusion that that is so because a lot of men are jerks; I could be wrong on that, but whatever the reason why many don't marry, I suspect that legalizing polygamy would make no difference whatsoever in the number of men that end up getting married; all that would result is that a small number of the women who don't get married will choose a polygamous lifestyle instead of remaining single all their lives.

[_KevinSim]

What do you think a birth certificate is, Kevin? Jesus Christ. It tell who was born and when -- and lists the father and mother too. So, to answer your question: Yes.

What you said was that one reason a woman shouldn't be allowed to marry two men was that when the woman gave birth to a child it wouldn't be clear from the relationship who the child's father was. My point is that the exact same could be said if two lesbians marry and one of them gives birth; once again it wouldn't be clear from the relationship who the child's father was. If the child's mother took care to determine who the biological father was, and therefore was able to put it on the child's birth certificate, then why in the world couldn't a wife married to two men do a simple paternity test, determine who the biological father was, and also put it on the birth certificate?

In short, there's no real reason to believe it's more difficult to tell who a child's biological father is if there are two husbands in the marriage than if there are no husbands at all. So you can't use that argument to say that it shouldn't be legal for a woman to marry two men, and yet also say that it should be legal for a woman to marry another woman.

I think your response about whether a woman should be able to marry two men was pretty wishy washy but that's how you see it. So, does it become law? If men can marry 2 women than the law must allow women to marry two men. Fair is fair.

Sheesh! I came out and clearly said that if a law was proposed that would make it legal for a group of two or three people of any gender combination, to marry, I would support that law. How much clearer do I have to get? A woman and two men is a gender combination; I said I would support that law; therefore I support allowing a woman to marry two men. Fair is fair. Paul, why are you having so much trouble grasping this concept?

[_ajax18]

Dishonesty in politics? You can't get elected without doing some lying, especially not in a two party system in a country as large and factionalized as the corporate empire called the U.S.A.

And as those of us who have lived and been effected by Mormonism, it's obvious that you can't create a church looking to fill the world without a dose of dishonesty as well.

So I'm choosing my battles here as well. The bottom line is the same for me as it's always been. One guy wants to seize more of what I earn and the other is not going to take as much. It's been that way my whole life and I don't expect it to ever change, and no I've never made anything close to $200,000/year.

[_zeezrom]

It really is very odd that Mormons, of all people, oppose non-traditional marriage laws. [scratching head]

Is it really that hard to understand? The LDS Church was nearly legislated out of existence for its efforts to legitimize its own alternate sexual lifestyle, that church had to choose between extinction and embracing the Victorian value system, Woodruff led it on the road to barely surviving by embracing that value system, and now we Latter-day Saints are supposed to rejoice because another group of violators of that value system are on the verge of getting their lifestyle legitimized?

If we should follow the Victorian value system, then let's follow it. But if by legalizing gay marriage we're abandoning the Victorian value system, then let the United States government admit it was wrong to try to force that value system down the Mormons' throats back in the late 1800s.

Oh dear.

[_Darth J]

KevinSim, thanks for illustrating how you can't understand the difference between arbitrarily discriminating against a group of people and placing limitations on the number of people who can participate in something.

I understand "the difference between arbitrarily discriminating agasint a group of people and placing limitations on the number of people who can participate." I never said so discriminating and so limiting numbers were the same; I just pointed out that the same value system that was the principal argument against the one (limiting numbers), just as effectively argued against the other (discriminating based on sexual orientation). So there's no way I can see to logically conclude that gays should be allowed to marry without the logical consequence being that polygamous triples should be allowed to marry.

So you can understand the difference, but you can't understand the difference. Well done.

The "value system" at issue is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, not Victorian social mores.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate against black people in a place of public accommodation. Logically, this means that we must abandon fire codes that limit how many people can be in a movie theater. If we let in one black person, we have to let in 10,000 black persons, even if the theater is only designed to hold 500 people total.

It's interesting that people have to appeal to huge numbers in their attempts to refute me. Shulem referred to "limitless" numbers of people; Darth J, here you refer to "10,000 black persons." All I'm saying is that the theater owners shouldn't prohibit groups of two or three moviegoers from entering their theaters. Of course, if admitting a group of three moviegoers would take the total attending over the 500 limit then the theater owners would be completely justified in keeping that group out.

No, nobody has to resort to huge numbers to explain the difference between arbitrary discrimination against a classification of persons and rationally-based discrimination based on numbers---a distinction that you simultaneously do and do not understand.

[_cacheman]

And should each such birth certificate have listed on it the name of the child's biological birth father?

I am listed as the father on one of my children's birth certificate despite the fact that I am not the biological father. It lists it such since I am one of the legal parents / guardians of the child. I would think the same would apply in a homosexual or polygamous marriage.

cacheman

[_KevinSim]

No, nobody has to resort to huge numbers to explain the difference between arbitrary discrimination against a classification of persons and rationally-based discrimination based on numbers---a distinction that you simultaneously do and do not understand.

Darth J, what is the rationale for discriminating against polygamous triples?

[_KevinSim]

I am listed as the father on one of my children's birth certificate despite the fact that I am not the biological father. It lists it such since I am one of the legal parents / guardians of the child. I would think the same would apply in a homosexual or polygamous marriage.

Then it would appear (correct me if I'm wrong) that in your opinion Paul has no point at all.

[_cacheman]

I am listed as the father on one of my children's birth certificate despite the fact that I am not the biological father. It lists it such since I am one of the legal parents / guardians of the child. I would think the same would apply in a homosexual or polygamous marriage.

Then it would appear (correct me if I'm wrong) that in your opinion Paul has no point at all.

Honestly, I haven't put a whole lot of thought into it, but I'm not sure that I see the reasons to legally deny polygamous marriages between consenting adults. I'm open to arguments to the contrary though.

Are you ok with legalizing gay marriage?

cacheman