Homosexuality and Polygamy

[pdoel]

All marriage won't lead to polygamy, just the constant changing of it.

Ha ha. Precious. So, is homosexual marriage the only place you've drawn the line? Or are you still fighting against inter-racial marriages? Or inter-faith marriages? Are you out picketing divorces?

IMO, marriage is about a lot more than keeping the population going.

I agree 100%. Which is why I'm 100% for homosexual marriage. I think marriage is a committment between two consenting adults who want to live a life together, share their love, and be there and take care of each other, till death do they part.

The truth is, I don't necessarily believe this, but I bet you assumed I did.

You'd be betting wrong. I never assumed you believed that. I simply used it as a reason to show the weakness of your argument.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Shocking as it might be, I confess that if the US legalized polygamy, I would be among the first in the country to order a second Acme Latex Love Doll (provided of course that I had permission from my first Acme Latex Love Doll to do so). Nothing keeps you so warm at night as sleeping between two women.

Yes it does...three dogs.
'Two latex girlies night'? Strangely, never heard and so obviously ineffective. Of course, if there's somewhere in there you can stick a hot water bottle, might be a different story.

 

[Fluffy]

My reasoning behind accepting homosexual marriage does indeed extend to polygamous marriages and therefore I fully support of both.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I was wondering, everyone who is for eqaul rights and marriage for homosexuals, then would it also be okay to allow polygamy again?

Great question. I don't see why polygamy should be illegal. And I think it would be hypocritical to be against polygamy for basically the same reasons others are against gay marriage (e.g. prejudice).

 

[mr.guy]

I don't see why polygamy should be illegal.

It probably shouldn't be.

And I think it would be hypocritical to be against polygamy for basically the same reasons others are against gay marriage (e.g. prejudice).

That's a pretty tidy package, ain't it? Why is resisting an actual redefinition of marriage, that is to say, creating additional rights and mechanics the same as blocking out an legal union that fundementally functions identically to it's precursive institutional state? I've so far failed to see how the two are interchangeble causes.

 

[Ormiston]

I think we'd be doing a lot of men a favor by not allowing polygamy...we not to smart to begin wit.

 

[Bishka]

I think we'd be doing a lot of men a favor by not allowing polygamy...we not to smart to begin wit.

:biglaugh: I needed that, thanks.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Someone may have already stated this, but I'm currently lacking the will to read through the entire thread. I keep telling myself I shouldn't bother trying to put input into discussions like this, but then I go and do it anyway. I wish I could stop.

I know that I shouldn't keep struggling with myself that some seem to automatically associate homosexuality with polygamy. (Usually quickly leading into asking when people will start to ask if they can marry their pets.) I know in my head that it's because some people mentally group same-sex marriage in the 'wrong' category, as they would polygamy and bestiality. It's just hard that, in my heart, I still feel the compulsion to try to discuss the issue.

Both heterosexual and homosexual relationships are about love between two consenting adults. Polygamy is not. (At its best, I imagine, it's love between 'or more' consenting adults. Personally, I don't pass judgement on it, since it's quite unlikely that I'd be asked to be in a polygamous relationship. I imagine it's quite unlikely for me to be asked to be in either of the first two, either, sadly.) I don't see how, if one is able to marry their soulmate and be fully recognized by the government as a married couple , one could ever try to say that someone else is not allowed to.

 

[mr.guy]

I know that I shouldn't keep struggling with myself that some seem to automatically associate homosexuality with polygamy.

Exactly; that goes for both sides of this debate. Fact remains that same-sex marriage leaves no precedent whatsoever for upcoming polygamy, polyandry, beastiality, incest, etc. legislation. If you want radical marriage redfinitions and practical alterations, look at the last couple decades worth of divorce amendments.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes it does...three dogs.
'Two latex girlies night'? Strangely, never heard and so obviously ineffective. Of course, if there's somewhere in there you can stick a hot water bottle, might be a different story.

But you forget, my dear, that I would be the one inflating my Acme Latex Love Dolls with my own breath. So they would naturally be inflated with hot air.

 

[Pah]

But you forget, my dear, that I would be the one inflating my Acme Latex Love Dolls with my own breath. So they would naturally be inflated with hot air.

Cold heart, cold breath

 

[standing_alone]

Cold heart, cold breath

Oooh, that was harsh!

 

[lilithu]

I know that I shouldn't keep struggling with myself that some seem to automatically associate homosexuality with polygamy. (Usually quickly leading into asking when people will start to ask if they can marry their pets.) I know in my head that it's because some people mentally group same-sex marriage in the 'wrong' category, as they would polygamy and bestiality. It's just hard that, in my heart, I still feel the compulsion to try to discuss the issue.

Both heterosexual and homosexual relationships are about love between two consenting adults. Polygamy is not. (At its best, I imagine, it's love between 'or more' consenting adults. Personally, I don't pass judgement on it, <...>

Feathers,

Honestly, I am confused by the number of people on this thread who say that they're not passing judgement on polygamy and at the same time are offended that it is brought up in the context of same-sex marriage. I suggest that the reason why some people are offended by same-sex marriage and polygamy being mentioned together is because they believe that there is something wrong with polygamy, and that if they did not think polygamy is wrong, there would be no offense.

While it's true that some people group same-sex marriage in the "wrong" category along with polygamy and bestiality, that is not the only reason why talk of legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to talk of legalizing polygamy. There is also a perfectly legitimate legal reason why the two would be linked.

The argument in favor legalizing of same-sex marriage is not being based on love, because some people will never believe that love between two men or two women can truly be love, and it is not the job of the state to convince them otherwise. It is not our job to decide whether people are really in love. The legal argument in favor of same-sex marriage is based on equity. If certain rights and privileges are being given to heterosexual couples because they willingly enter into a legally and socially recognized contract, then the same option should be extended to same-sex couples. That is the argument that logically cannot be disputed regardless of what people may think of the moral status of homosexuality. But if we make this argument, then the question follows why this recognition should be limited to just couples. What is the legal basis for this limitation? It can't be based on what we consider to be love. It can't be based on tradition. There has to be a compelling reason for why limiting this liberty is necessary. What is the legal basis for limiting marriage to couples?

 

[Booko]

But you forget, my dear, that I would be the one inflating my Acme Latex Love Dolls with my own breath. So they would naturally be inflated with hot air.

What is a good price for an Acme Latex Love Doll anyway?

I'd like to dress one up and put it into the passenger seat so I can drive in the HOV lane.

 

[Sunstone]

What is a good price for an Acme Latex Love Doll anyway?

I recommend the Acme Model 1032 with vibrating breasts and optional boobie tassels for $19.95.

I'd like to dress one up and put it into the passenger seat so I can drive in the HOV lane.

Sure you will! *wink wink*

 

[Quoth The Raven]

But you forget, my dear, that I would be the one inflating my Acme Latex Love Dolls with my own breath. So they would naturally be inflated with hot air.

Well, in that case, you'll be able to hang a gondola from their legs and charge people for balloon flights.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Feathers,

Honestly, I am confused by the number of people on this thread who say that they're not passing judgement on polygamy and at the same time are offended that it is brought up in the context of same-sex marriage. I suggest that the reason why some people are offended by same-sex marriage and polygamy being mentioned together is because they believe that there is something wrong with polygamy, and that if they did not think polygamy is wrong, there would be no offense.

You're quite right, and I apologize. I was struggling to explain why I don't believe polygamy is wrong, and wound up failing by taking the 'cowards way out'. It's frustrating that I can't seem to express myself lately, and I hope that my clumsy words might be forgiven.

 

[OrthodoxChristian]

HOMOSEXUALITY IS EVIL

IT IS ABOMINATION

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

[Pah]

HOMOSEXUALITY IS EVIL

IT IS ABOMINATION

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Do you advocate the killing of children when they talk back to you? Are you wearing clothes made of a blend of fibers? Have you cut your hair or beard?

If you do not do all of these things, then you are termed a "cafeteria" Christian. You pick and choose what word to follow.

Do you understand that the love of God surpasses all of what you understand and that in his love, he is the judge of what is in someone's heart. You are wrong on so many levels, it's pathetic.