Homosexuality and Polygamy

[kevmicsmi]

With multiple spouses, it's often the case where it's a dom/sub type relationship. With multiple wives, the wives are often treated as property rather than as equals in the marriage.

If it is consentual, the it really should be none of your business. Why do you care? Consenting adults should have the right to be treated like property if they want to be.

 

[kevmicsmi]

With multiple spouses, it's often the case where it's a dom/sub type relationship. With multiple wives, the wives are often treated as property rather than as equals in the marriage.

If it is consentual, the it really should be none of your business. Why do you care? Consenting adults should have the right to be treated like property if they want to be.

 

[standing_alone]

Actually I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as churches are not forced to marry partners.

And churches wouldn't be. Churches already are able to choose if they want to marry certain heterosexual couples, why would that be different for homosexual couples?

just wonder how some one can logicallly be for gay marriage, and opposed to polygamous marriages.

Because homsexuality and polygamy are one and the same.

Well, maybe I can't see why one can logically be for heterosexual marriage, but not for polygamous marriages. Wait, yeah I can, because they are two completely, seperate things! Just like homosexual marriages and polygamous marriages would be!

 

[nutshell]

Well, maybe I can't see why one can logically be for heterosexual marriage, but not for polygamous marriages. Wait, yeah I can, because they are two completely, seperate things! Just like homosexual marriages and polygamous marriages would be!

But once you start changing the definition of marriage what's to stop a different group from wanting to add their definition too?

 

[kevmicsmi]

Well, maybe I can't see why one can logically be for heterosexual marriage, but not for polygamous marriages. Wait, yeah I can, because they are two completely, seperate things! Just like homosexual marriages and polygamous marriages would be!

All are between consenting adults.

Because homsexuality and polygamy are one and the same.

That sounds like arguments against gay marriage from straight people.

 

[mr.guy]

But once you start changing the definition of marriage what's to stop a different group from wanting to add their definition too?

Like that divorce advocacy group, right? Shouldn't the op also be equating divorce to polygamy/polyamory relationships?

 

[standing_alone]

But once you start changing the definition of marriage what's to stop a different group from wanting to add their definition too?

Well, I guess nothing. But that's starting to head towards a slippery slope. "Well, if we allow those damn queers to marry, then the polygamists are going to demand marriage, too!" Everyone has a right to address the government about what they think our their rights. I don't see what the big deal is. I may be uneasy about the idea of polygamy myself, but I'm not going to stop people from trying to obtain the right to marry multiple spouses or keep people from marrying multiple spouses or condemn people for marrying multiple spouses. I, simply, would not marry multiple spouses myself. So, I guess, who cares if different groups want to add their own defination? I mean, if their definitin becomes accepted along with each of ours, we aren't obligated to take part in that definition of marriage, just ours. If it's heterosexual marriage for you, then that's your definition of marriage; If it's homosexual marriage for me, then that's my definition of marriage; if it's polygamous marriage for other people, then that's their definition of marriage. I don't see how that hurts anybody.

 

[pdoel]

But once you start changing the definition of marriage what's to stop a different group from wanting to add their definition too?

Keep in mind, the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit over the years. Thousands of years ago, Homosexuality was accepted. Regardless of what many want to believe, Marriage was not originally a religious institution. Marriage has been around MUCH longer than religion.

People tend to define marriage based on what THEY want marriage to be. For many Christians, marriage is a religious institution, the purpose of which, is to have children. Yet, it doesn't seem to bother them that many people are married (and married in Churches), yet have NO intent to have children. It doesn't seem to bother them that many people marry even though they can't have children.

There was a time that marriage was outlawed between different races. There were times where religions would not allow the marriage of people of two different faiths. Those definitions have changed over the years. There were times when divorce was rare and considered a mortal sin. But people don't seem to care about that anymore either.

The definition of marriage and the family have changed quite drastically over the last 100 or so years.

I'm sorry, but the old "If we allow homosexual marriage, what's going to stop us from . . . . " doesn't stick. That's like saying, "If we allow a hospital to take someone off life support, what's stopping us from allowing murder?"

Being afraid of what could possibly come next isn't a reason to deny someone rights.

 

[standing_alone]

All are between consenting adults.

Yeah, all are, but they are different "styles" of marriage, if you will. I don't really care if people want polygamous marriage or enter into polygamist marriages. I'm not going to actively fight for that right, but I'm not going to be outraged if they fight for it or obtain it. I'm not a polygamist, so I just won't enter into such a marriage.

That sounds like arguments against gay marriage from straight people.

It was sarcasm. I didn't actually mean they were the same thing.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Yeah, all are, but they are different "styles" of marriage, if you will. I don't really care if people want polygamous marriage or enter into polygamist marriages. I'm not going to actively fight for that right, but I'm not going to be outraged if they fight for it or obtain it. I'm not a polygamist, so I just won't enter into such a marriage.



It was sarcasm. I didn't actually mean they were the same thing.

I understand it was sarcasm, but if you just take that frome of mind, you have arguments against gay marriage. Example


If you as a hetrosexual can get married why cant a gay couple?

Yeah like those two types of relationships are the same thing

 

[nutshell]

Keep in mind, the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit over the years. Thousands of years ago, Homosexuality was accepted. Regardless of what many want to believe, Marriage was not originally a religious institution. Marriage has been around MUCH longer than religion.

People tend to define marriage based on what THEY want marriage to be. For many Christians, marriage is a religious institution, the purpose of which, is to have children. Yet, it doesn't seem to bother them that many people are married (and married in Churches), yet have NO intent to have children. It doesn't seem to bother them that many people marry even though they can't have children.

There was a time that marriage was outlawed between different races. There were times where religions would not allow the marriage of people of two different faiths. Those definitions have changed over the years. There were times when divorce was rare and considered a mortal sin. But people don't seem to care about that anymore either.

The definition of marriage and the family have changed quite drastically over the last 100 or so years.

I'm sorry, but the old "If we allow homosexual marriage, what's going to stop us from . . . . " doesn't stick. That's like saying, "If we allow a hospital to take someone off life support, what's stopping us from allowing murder?"

Being afraid of what could possibly come next isn't a reason to deny someone rights.

Well, I believe God instituted marriage beginning with Adam and Eve. I recognize there have been changes over time and so that almost validates my point. It's not going to stop changing so if we allow gay marriage then polygamy and others may not be far behind.

 

[mr.guy]

Yeah like those two types of relationships are the same thing.

Right. Some quack tried to convince me that interracial marriages were equally valid as the monochromatic. Insanity.

 

[standing_alone]

I understand it was sarcasm, but if you just take that frome of mind, you have arguments against gay marriage. Example


If you as a hetrosexual can get married why cant a gay couple?

Yeah like those two types of relationships are the same thing

What my point by my sarcasm was that someone can be for homosexual marriage and not for polygamous marriage because they are different. Just because you believe in extending marriage to homosexuals doesn't mean that by default you believe in extending marriage to polygamists. I, myself, am indifferent to polygamous marriage. But then, maybe I'm just really not for homosexual marriage - I mean, since I'm indifferent to polygamous marriages...:sarcastic

 

[standing_alone]

It's not going to stop changing so if we allow gay marriage then polygamy and others may not be far behind.

They may - and then again... they may not.

 

[mr.guy]

...and then again... they may not.

Imossible. The homosexual agenda has clearly been forcing the issue bestiality. Obviously, they'll never rest until i've married my cat.

 

[kevmicsmi]

What my point by my sarcasm was that someone can be for homosexual marriage and not for polygamous marriage because they are different. Just because you believe in extending marriage to homosexuals doesn't mean that by default you believe in extending marriage to polygamists. I, myself, am indifferent to polygamous marriage. But then, maybe I'm just really not for homosexual marriage - I mean, since I'm indifferent to polygamous marriages...:sarcastic

A consistent, consenting adult argument would dictate such.

 

[standing_alone]

A consistent, consenting adult argument would dictate such.

Hey, I don't care if people partake in polygamous marriages. It's their choice. I'm just indifferent to the subject of polygamous marriage. If that makes me inconsistent, so be it.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Hey, I don't care if people partake in polygamous marriages. It's their choice. I'm just indifferent to the subject of polygamous marriage. If that makes me inconsistent, so be it.

sorry, I highlighted the wrong part of your quote...my bad

What my point by my sarcasm was that someone can be for homosexual marriage and not for polygamous marriage because they are different. Just because you believe in extending marriage to homosexuals doesn't mean that by default you believe in extending marriage to polygamists. I, myself, am indifferent to polygamous marriage. But then, maybe I'm just really not for homosexual marriage - I mean, since I'm indifferent to polygamous marriages

Being indifferent does not make you inconsistent, opposing it does.

 

[mr.guy]

If that makes me inconsistent,...

It doesn't.

But then again, i fear any disagreements you may have with biblical literalists would necesarily and ultimately be inconsistent, ya see? Your opponents are so obviously right that they don't even have to rise above smarm to point out how false you are.

 

[kevmicsmi]

It doesn't.

But then again, i fear any disagreements you may have with biblical literalists would necesarily and ultimately be inconsistent, ya see? Your opponents are so obviously right that they don't even have to rise above smarm to point out how false you are.

Who exactly are you directing your sermons to?