Quantcast
U.S. & World

Gay couples get hitched in Minnesota, Rhode Island

Comments

Return To Article
  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Aug. 2, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    @O'really --

    "Contrarius you should consult the ERs and hospitals in San Francisco before you say there is no harm done in gay marriages."

    Don't confuse promiscuous sex with gay marriage.

    If you are worried about the consequences of promiscuity, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages *stable, monogamous* relationships -- and stable relationships decrease the transmission of STDs.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Aug. 2, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    Contrarius you should consult the ERs and hospitals in San Francisco before you say there is no harm done in gay marriages.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Aug. 2, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "...eventually polygamy will become legalized."

    I'll repeat your own words back at you: do you have some means of seeing into the future?

    You have not provided any evidence that this claim is true.

    You have not provided any evidence that polygamy and gay marriage are even causally connected.

    "...they only want to marry the person they love."

    This is only PART of the argument. The harm principle is the OTHER part. Both parts are ESSENTIAL to the legalization of gay marriage.

    Polygamy conveys harm. Gay marriage does not.

    It's really very simple, Red.

    "...gay marriages, interracial marriages, and interfaith marriages."

    Do interracial marriages lead to polygamy? Do interfaith marriages lead to polygamy? If not, then you have no justification for declaring that gay marriage leads to polygamy.

    "they recognize it as legal if performed outside of those nations"

    No. You are playing with different senses of the word "recognize" here.

    Australia and the UK "recognize" extranationally-performed polygamy ONLY for the purposes of welfare and access to family courts. They do NOT protect insurance benefits, inheritance benefits, citizenship issues, immigration issues, or the literally thousands of other rights and benefits gained through monogamous marriages.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 2, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" do you have some means of seeing into the future? Again, your attitudes are the same held by previous generations regarding gay marriages, interracial marriages, and interfaith marriages.

    Gay marriage used the argument that they only want to marry the person they love. That is a true fact, read up on what gays and liberals have been saying.

    I never said that polygamy was legal to perform in Australia and the UK, just that they recognize it as legal if performed outside of those nations, much like Gay Marriage prior to 2002.

    You keep trying to twist what I say, but I have been quite clear. The fact remains that you cannot refute the fact that by changing the definition of marriage, eventually polygamy will become legalized. You only have your opinion that it won't happen, but that is just your opinion. Just like the Democrats in the Southern US that said that interracial marriages would never happen.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Aug. 2, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    @ Larceny Re: How about no gay marriages huh? Well that's not going to work out to well for you if you plan to remain a resident of the United States of America, some day gay marriages will be performed in all 50 states. If this is something you can't live with, may I respectfully suggest that you move to Russia, Iran, Pakistan or some other nation that outlaws same sex marriages. You may find you are much happier in one of those countries that are more aligned with your line of thinking or moral values. Just a thought.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Aug. 2, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "how can you be rebutting my claims, when you now agree with them."

    Sigh, Red.

    Let's see if I can refresh your memory.

    You claim that legalizing gay marriage will automatically lead to legalized polygamy.
    --This is false.

    You claim that if gay marriage is legalized, there will be no legal argument to stop legalized polygamy.
    --This is false.

    You claim that the same arguments used to legalize gay marriage can be used to legalize polygamy.
    --This is false.

    You claim that gay marriage "can be legalized simply by saying that they just want to marry the person they love."
    --This is false.

    You claim that same-sex relationships have higher rates of domestic violence than opposite-sex relationships.
    --This is false.

    You claim that the articles you cited provide substantial support for the legalization of polygamy.
    --This is false.

    You claim that polygamy is legal in Australia and the UK.
    --This is false.

    I hope this helps to remind you of many of the false claims you've been making. My apologies if I've left any out.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 2, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" how can you be rebutting my claims, when you now agree with them.

    So, to be clear, you agree that using the same arguments the gays are using, you can justify polygamy. You also agree that it is only a matter of time before polygamy is legalized.

    Using your example, we find that the legalities of marriage can be changed when there is sufficient support. Interracial marriages do not lead to polygamy, but is an example of how what once was considered unthinkable can become normalized and socially acceptable.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Aug. 2, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    -- continued --

    Australia: Australia's Attorney General has pointed out: "There is absolutely no way that the government will be recognising polygamist relationships. They are unlawful and they will remain as such."

    UK: From wikipedia: "Polygamous marriages may not be performed in the United Kingdom, and if a polygamous marriage is performed, the already-married person may be guilty of the crime of bigamy. Polygamous marriages legally performed in another country where the law allows it are not recognized for pension, immigration or citizenship purposes. However, they may be recognized for the purposes of welfare benefits."

    Furthermore, the payments of limited benefits to polygamous partners in the UK is not new. From a 2012 House of Commons document titled "Polygamy": "Rules enabling the payment of some benefits in respect of some polygamous marriages have been in force for some time; for example, in relation to Income Support, the current rules have applied since 1987."

    And even further: "the current Government have decided to no longer recognise polygamous marriages [even for welfare purposes] and there are measures in the Welfare Reform Bill which will bring this change in policy into effect under universal credit as from 2013."

    200 words isn't enough!

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    Yet another step toward the abyss.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Aug. 2, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "you are still off topic."

    No, Red. I'm just rebutting falsehoods that you would rather not see challenged.

    "Do you or do you not deny that gay marriage was once deemed by society as something that would never be legalized, but has since been legalized?"

    Of course I don't deny that -- just as I don't deny that interracial marriage was also once deemed by society as something that would never be legalized, but has since been legalized.

    Are you now going to claim that interracial marriage leads to legalized polygamy?

    "If gay marriage can be legalized simply by saying that they just want to marry the person they love..."

    That has never actually been the full argument for gay marriage.

    As several US courts have already pointed out, it is also essential that **the state has no interest in preventing gay marriages**. "Interest", in legal terms, means no logical reason for preventing them; IOW, gay marriages do not cause harm. The state DOES have an interest -- reasons (harm) -- for preventing polygay and incest, but it does NOT have a reason for preventing same-sex marriage.

    "Polygamy isn't "banned"..."

    Actually, it is.

    --to be continued --

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 2, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    To "Contrariuser" you are still off topic. Do you or do you not deny that gay marriage was once deemed by society as something that would never be legalized, but has since been legalized?

    If gay marriage can be legalized simply by saying that they just want to marry the person they love, why can't polygamy also be legalized using the same arguments?

    Your statements about the UK and Australia are confusing. Polygamy isn't "banned", it is jus something that you can't start there, but you can bring it with you. You seem to be in denial that those countries do recognize polygamous marriages that occured outside of the counry.

    So, again, do you deny the possibility that using the same arguments that a person can justify polygamy, and that it is only a matter of time before it is legalized in more nations around the world?
    They are following the same path that they did with gay marriage, they just don't have the same support for polygamy that they did for gay marriage, but it is just a matter of time.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Aug. 1, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "you are going off topic."

    It is perfectly on topic to rebut your many false claims, Red.

    "The heart of the issue is that 30 years ago the public and policy of the US was that Gay Marriage was wrong and would never be implemented."

    No. The true heart of the issue is that gay marriage has completely different implications and effects than either polygamy or incest. They are like apples and oranges. The courts easily recognize these differences, even if you don't.

    "Do you deny that the UK and Australia now recognize polygamous marriages performed outside those countries?"

    In reality, polygamy is banned in both the UK and Australia.

    The supposed "recognition" you trumpet in both countries actually only applies to things like welfare benefits and family court access -- things that the wives in those marriages desperately need in order to protect themselves and their children. It is far, FAR from actual full legal recognition.

    Also -- Australia bans gay marriages, and the UK started giving welfare benefits to out-of-country polygamous marriages long BEFORE it recognized gay marriage, so neither of them have anything to do with the gay marriage debate.

    Keept trying, Red. Try FACTS, please.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Aug. 1, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    -- continued from previous post --

    "Lord of the Rings: An Economic Benefit to Polygamy?"
    -- this one specifically states: "This being said, there are also many negative externalities associated with polygamy, particularly in light of women's reduced utility (utility basically means happiness in a philosophical context) from being in a polygamous relationship." and "As many opponents of legalizing polygamy note, it is clear that a woman's individual utility from being in a polygamous marriage will be inevitably lower than their utility in a monogamous relationship." and "there are also issues regarding the 'consent' to polygamous relationships as well as many studies showing adverse effects in children that grow up in polygamous households."

    "Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits"
    -- LOL! This one is talking about collecting WELFARE benefits, not touting any supposed general benefits of polygamy. Notice also that it was published in 2008, long BEFORE gay marriages became legal in the UK, so it has nothing at all to do with our gay marriage debate.

    Cmon, Red. Keep trying.

    But, please, try harder to present actual FACTS, rather than just blindly copying the titles of articles when you obviously don't even know what those articles actually SAY.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    To "Contrariuser" you are going off topic. The heart of the issue is that 30 years ago the public and policy of the US was that Gay Marriage was wrong and would never be implemented. Now 25% of the states recognize gay marriage. It is only a matter of time until the US and more industrialized nations permit polygamy.

    You can argue that it won't happen, but history and current events is showing us that it is just a matter of time until polygamy is fully accepted.

    Do you deny that the UK and Australia now recognize polygamous marriages performed outside those countries? How much longer do you think it will take? In the UK it took 3 years from recognizing gay marriages performed in other countries until they had fully adopted civil unions for gays, then only 8 years from then until they declared gay marriage totaly legal.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Aug. 1, 2013 4:16 p.m.

    -- continued from previous post --

    "Lord of the Rings: An Economic Benefit to Polygamy?" -- this one specifically states: "This being said, there are also many negative externalities associated with polygamy, particularly in light of women's reduced utility (utility basically means happiness in a philosophical context) from being in a polygamous relationship." and "As many opponents of legalizing polygamy note, it is clear that a woman's individual utility from being in a polygamous marriage will be inevitably lower than their utility in a monogamous relationship." and "there are also issues regarding the 'consent' to polygamous relationships as well as many studies showing adverse effects in children that grow up in polygamous households."

    "Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits" -- LOL! This one is talking about collecting WELFARE benefits, not general benefits of polygamy. Notice also that it was published in 2008, long BEFORE gay marriages became legal in the UK, so it has nothing at all to do with our gay marriage debate.

    Cmon, Red. Keep trying. But try harder to present actual FACTS, rather than just blindly copying the titles of articles when you obviously don't even know what those articles actually SAY.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Aug. 1, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    @Red --

    "your views on polygamy are EXACTLY the same as what most Americans believed 30 years ago."

    Actually, no, they aren't.

    We can prove the physical and psychological harms done by polygamy (and also incest) -- in stark contrast to same-sex marriages.

    That very difference between them is why so many US courts have already pointed out that Lawrence (the case that struck down sodomy bans) does NOT apply to polygamy or incest. The courts recognize the differences, even if you don't.

    "you ignor the fact that there are people touting its benefits, and are praising it."

    People tout the benefits of Scientology, as well. So what?

    "See "The paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men benefit from monogamy" "

    Red, you REALLY should learn to READ your citations before you bring them forth.

    The author of this opinion piece -- note that it's an OPINION piece, not any sort of study at all -- is an evolutionary psychologist who is simply mulling over THEORETICAL, EVOLUTIONARY implications of polygamy. He is not saying anything at all about the harms of abuse that are suffered by real-life women and children in real-life societies.

    continued --

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 3:43 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" you realize that your views on polygamy are EXACTLY the same as what most Americans believed 30 years ago.

    You may say say that it will never happen, but that is what they used to say about gay marriage too.

    But, you ignor the fact that there are people touting its benefits, and are praising it. See "The paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men benefit from monogamy" where we learn why polygamy is good for women. From Cornell University we read "Lord of the Rings: An Economic Benefit to Polygamy?" From the UK Telegraph we see "Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits".

    The UK and Australia already recognize polygamous marriages performed outside their countries. How much effort do you think it would take to get the practice legalized in those countries? All it takes is for some groups to leave the UK, get married then return and they will fall.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 1, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    You said: "It is only a matter of time..."

    Yeah, sure, and it's only a matter of time before the sky falls, too.

    You said: "Gays are more likely to be in abusive relationships...."

    This is simply not true. Try READING the studies you cite.

    -- The "Battering Victimization" paper specifically states: "Published estimates of partner abuse among MSM (gay men) range from 12% to 36%....these estimates are roughly comparable to cited measures of domestic violence among heterosexual women."

    -- The "Lesbian Partner Violence" sheet specifically states: "Violence appears to be about as common among lesbian couples as among heterosexual couples".

    You said: "who can say that marriage between 2 people is good, but marriage between 4 people is bad?"

    The voting populace, the legislature, and the courts, of course.

    From Canada's polygamy-ban case:
    -- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial..."
    -- "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

    Keep Trying, Red.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" it is only a matter of time before the polygamists wear down the courts and get their way. How long did it take the Gay community to get their way? It should be easier for the polygamists because the gays have already redefined marriage, so that obstacle is out of the way.

    The big question is now that marriage has been redefined, who can say that marriage between 2 people is good, but marriage between 4 people is bad? If they love eachother and enter into it of their own choosing, why is one good and the other bad?

    If protection from injury is the reason to ban polygamy, then you should also support a ban of homosexual relationships. Gays are more likely to be in abusive relationships than heterosexual couples. See "Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men" in the Journal of American Public Health and "Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet" at the National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    @well

    The "special rights" to marry? funny I never thought that having the same "rights" as other already have and seem to take for granite as being "special."

  • well informed Salt Lake, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    Why do gays deserve special rights?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 1, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "Next stop...Legalized polyamorous relationships."

    Here we go again.

    1. Roughly 15 countries already have gay marriage -- and NONE of them have legalized polygamy.

    2. Canada recently reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for 10 years now.

    3. Multiple court decisions in the US have reaffirmed the distinction between gay rights and both polygamy and incest.

    Our Federal and State courts have acknowledged -- many times over -- that they have a strong interest in keeping acts like pedophilia, incest, and polygamy illegal, because of the harm principle.

    Those same Federal and State courts have recognized in multiple court decisions that the state does NOT have an interest in banning homosexuality, because consensual homosexual relations do NOT cause harm. The courts recognize the distinctions between these acts, even if you don't.

    Here's one very brief example. "Lawrence" is the SCOTUS decision that overturned sodomy bans.

    -- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans: "the holding in Lawrence is actually quite narrow.....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM PROTECTION conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.'"

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    John20000

    Cedar Hills, UT

    Is there an difference between a union of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman, and a woman?

    If so, the laws that govern those unions should be uniquely tailor to suit the needs of each type of union. I think it is a mistake to lump them all together.

    ----------------

    Legally, there is NO DIFFERENCE. That is why it should not have any other name.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    Next stop...Legalized polyamorous relationships.

    Those of you that cheer the legalization of gay marriage realize that it opens the door for polygamy and any relationship that involves multiple people, right?

    If gay marriage is a must because "they were born that way" or "they just want to marry the person they love", then polygamy is legal because of the same reasons.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    @larecny

    You can be in favor of what ever you wish and others get to debate you on that issue without you crying that your rights are being taken away, Isn't the Constitution great?!

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Aug. 1, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    Excellent news. One day same sex marriage will take place in all 50 states!

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 1, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    @Larceny --

    "How about no Gay Marriages, huh? Am I still allowed to be in favor of that by my constitutional rights?"

    You can be in favor of it all you like. You just can't expect to force others to abide by your personal UNconstitutional desire to deny equal rights to all citizens.

    @Hey --

    "Why not make a word called 'Pairage'. "

    Hey -- if you want a pairage, you go right ahead and have one. The rest of us -- gay and straight alike -- will go right ahead and have our marriages instead. ;-)

    Marriages were happening long, long before the Bible was ever written. There is no reason why the mass of humanity should restrict the use of the word to your particular interpretation of how the term should be defined.

  • Larceny Rural Hall, USA, NC
    Aug. 1, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    How about no Gay Marriages, huh? Am I still allowed to be in favor of that by my constitutional rights?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    Hey it's you

    here is an idea how about since marriage is a civil contract if you want your religious marriage to be something special why don't you name it something else. with all the same rights of course, like I don't know maybe a temple marriage? there is a reason because separate is not equal or you would just change the name of your marriages.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    Is there an difference between a union of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman, and a woman?

    If so, the laws that govern those unions should be uniquely tailor to suit the needs of each type of union. I think it is a mistake to lump them all together.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Here's an idea. . . new words are made up every year and eventually put in the Dictionary, so here is a suggestion so everyone can get along. Why not make a word called "Pairage". The definition could be something like a pair of people united. They would have all the same rights as a couple who are married. I think "Pairage" would be awesome and I would definitely support it. I believe Gay, Transgender, bisexual or any other people should have the same rights as I do. We all will be judged by God, I have no right to judge. But, I believe the scriptures say Marriage is between a man and a women. . . . so as I suggested let's have "Pairage" and move on and love each other for who they are.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 1, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    Congrats to the happy couples -- and may there be many more of them!

    30% of gay couples in the US can now legally marry. That's an encouraging number, but we've still got to ensure equal rights for the other 70%!