Romney: Marriage is between one man and one woman

[_Shulem]

Slippery slope argument. I've never been impressed by the slippery slope argument.

Is it the right thing for the nation to let a group of four people marry? Either it is or it isn't. If it is, then make it legal. If it isn't, then keep the limit at three. I could say the same thing for a group of five, or six, etc.

The really important question is, why nip it in the bud with a two party system? Why not reduce it to one? If the whole idea is to make marriage as simple as possible, then why not outlaw marriage altogether? That would get rid of all the complexity entirely.

The reason that reducing the number down to one is a bad idea is because there's something good about letting two people marry. All I'm asking, Shulem, is how you know there isn't also something good about letting three people marry.

Polygamy could prove to cause an imbalance inasmuch as over the course of a generation or so, millions of polygamous marriages would cause a shortage of women for the single men who are looking for wives. Good men everywhere would have a harder time finding a decent woman because they've all been bought up by other men who entered into polygamy.

Also, you said nothing about a women having two husbands. Do you think that's a good idea? Why should men get to have extra partners but women not? That doesn't seem fair. What is your answer to that?

Paul O

[_KevinSim]

Then there is the question about a woman wanting to marry 2 men. It may become difficult to keep track of the children and who belongs to who.

So, Paul, do you think then that it should be illegal for two lesbians to marry? Or that it should be legal for them to marry but that it shouldn't be legal for them to have any biological children? Or that it should be legal for them to give birth to children but that they should be required by law to have in their possession positive proof of who each child's biological father is?

If one gives birth to a child and doesn't have that proof of who the child's biological father is, then the situation is even worse than the situation you postulated. If a woman is married to two men then the child's father has to be one of those two men, and a simple paternity test will give the child the information s/he needs. On the other hand, if a lesbian uses donated sperm to father a child, how in the world is the child ever going to know who her/his father is?

So if a child not knowing who her/his father is is a reason to keep a woman from marrying two men, then it logically follows we have to make it illegal for those lesbians to use those pesky sperm banks! What do you think, Paul?

[_Buffalo]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_FJ9NuT_L9k/T ... _chart.jpg

[_Shulem]

So, Paul, do you think then that it should be illegal for two lesbians to marry? Or that it should be legal for them to marry but that it shouldn't be legal for them to have any biological children? Or that it should be legal for them to give birth to children but that they should be required by law to have in their possession positive proof of who each child's biological father is?

If one gives birth to a child and doesn't have that proof of who the child's biological father is, then the situation is even worse than the situation you postulated. If a woman is married to two men then the child's father has to be one of those two men, and a simple paternity test will give the child the information s/he needs. On the other hand, if a lesbian uses donated sperm to father a child, how in the world is the child ever going to know who her/his father is?

So if a child not knowing who her/his father is is a reason to keep a woman from marrying two men, then it logically follows we have to make it illegal for those lesbians to use those pesky sperm banks! What do you think, Paul?

1. Yes, two lesbians should be allowed to marry and have children by whatever means is available. That is their right. Children born or adopted need to have legal birth certificates, be fed, and educated.

2. So, do you think a woman marrying 2 men is a good idea. Yes or no?

Paul O

[_why me]

Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract. No big deal. Why is it a big deal for Mormons today? Should we ask Brigham Young?

Marriage is a big deal among many christian churches. The catholics are against same sex union and marriage. And the episcopals are split because of it. And many african-american churches do not support same sex marriage either. It is a big deal and not just for Mormons.

[_why me]

Why is Romney taking this social issue bait? He can probably win the Presidency by articulating two words, "the economy", and yet he's willing to take up this fight in order to nail down the conservative right that's going to vote for him anyway.

Romney takes his orders from his advisors. And because of his stance on same sex marriage, he is leading in North Carolina. He made a smart move with his Liberty College speech. The economy is important but for the evangelical protestants, the social issues are also important.

[_KevinSim]

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.

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.

[_KevinSim]

Polygamy could prove to cause an imbalance inasmuch as over the course of a generation or so, millions of polygamous marriages would cause a shortage of women for the single men who are looking for wives. Good men everywhere would have a harder time finding a decent woman because they've all been bought up by other men who entered into polygamy.

Paul, have you even thought about that argument? Sure, millions of polygamous marriages would "cause a shortage of women for the single men," namely a shortage of one woman for each such polygamous marriage. On the other hand, millions of lesbian marriages would also "cause a shortage of women for the single men, at a much higher rate, namely a shortage of two women for each lesbian marriage. So should that compel us to make lesbian marriages illegal?

We don't worry about lesbians marrying because for one thing, lesbians don't make up a huge percentage of the population, and for another thing, the lesbians that want to marry probably wouldn't consent to enter into a heterosexual marriage anyhow, so legalizing gay marriage really wouldn't decrease the pool of available women. Similarly, making it legal for a polygamous triple to marry won't change the (very small) percentage of triples who want to get involved in polygamous marriages. Generally speaking, people tend to want monogamous relationships, so the number of people entering into polygamy, should it get legalized, is going to be very small.

Also, you said nothing about a women having two husbands.

Actually, that's not true. There's an article on this very thread dated 14 May that has me saying:

There really wouldn't be that much danger of all the pretty girls being married up because a marriage of a woman and two men would be just as legal as a marriage of a man and two women, so over the total population it would have the potential for evening things out.

Do you think that's a good idea? Why should men get to have extra partners but women not? That doesn't seem fair. What is your answer to that?

See above.

[_KevinSim]

1. Yes, two lesbians should be allowed to marry and have children by whatever means is available. That is their right. Children born or adopted need to have legal birth certificates, be fed, and educated.

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

2. So, do you think a woman marrying 2 men is a good idea. Yes or no?

In general, no; in some cases, yes. Just as in the case of a man marrying a man; if one or both of the men are heterosexual, it's a bad idea; if they're both gay, that changes things. Similarly for two women marrying.

[_Shulem]

There really wouldn't be that much danger of all the pretty girls being married up because a marriage of a woman and two men would be just as legal as a marriage of a man and two women, so over the total population it would have the potential for evening things out.

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. 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?

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

Paul O