Homosexuality and Polygamy

[standing_alone]

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

Oh, okay. Not a problem.

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

Yep, I'm just indifferent to polygamous marriage. I don't oppose it. I think it's a bad idea, but I wouldn't stand in anyone's way trying to obtain such a right. I just wouldn't enter a polygamous marriage myself.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Oh, okay. Not a problem.



Yep, I'm just indifferent to polygamous marriage. I don't oppose it. I think it's a bad idea, but I wouldn't stand in anyone's way trying to obtain such a right. I just wouldn't enter a polygamous marriage myself.

Why do we have to start agreeing and finding common ground? I was just starting to warm up

 

[lilithu]

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

Kevin is right. If we are all in agreement that there should be a distinction between religious marriage - what each religion/church will recognize as marriage - and civil marriage - that legal/social contract regulated by the state that recognizes certain financial and social privileges between spouses, if we agree on that, then the only thing that we're arguing about is civil marriage/civil union.

And the argument for civil marriage is based solely on the recognized rights of consenting individuals to govern their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else. It is based on equity. It should not be based on the "yuck" factor. For many heterosexuals, the idea of same-sex marriage is "yucky." While I don't share that view, I can understand that people hold that view. BUT that cannot be used to determine who is allowed to get married and who isn't. Similarly for polygamy (and polyandry); I can understand why many of either orientation would look at that as "yucky." I don't find it appealing myself. BUT that cannot be used to determine who is allowed to get married and who isn't. All arguments of how it wouldn't work are not valid either. As long as it's between consenting adults and no one else is hurt, that's not for us to decide. And please, no one try to say that it will hurt the kids or the moral fiber of society because those same arguments have been made against same-sex marriage.

Perhaps Kevin and others can see the discrepancy more clearly because they've already been asked to step outside their own worldview. They've already been asked to draw the circle bigger to include more people. How can anyone in good conscience demand that the circle be expanded big enough to include them but not big enough to include someone else?

And please cut it out with the beastiality references. It's distracting and demeaning.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Kevin is right. If we are all in agreement that there should be a distinction between religious marriage - what each religion/church will recognize as marriage - and civil marriage - that legal/social contract regulated by the state that recognizes certain financial and social privileges between spouses, if we agree on that, then the only thing that we're arguing about is civil marriage/civil union.

And the argument for civil marriage is based solely on the recognized rights of consenting individuals to govern their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else. It is based on equity. It should not be based on the "yuck" factor. For many heterosexuals, the idea of same-sex marriage is "yucky." While I don't share that view, I can understand that people hold that view. BUT that cannot be used to determine who is allowed to get married and who isn't. Similarly for polygamy (and polyandry); I can understand why many of either orientation would look at that as "yucky." I don't find it appealing myself. BUT that cannot be used to determine who is allowed to get married and who isn't. All arguments of how it wouldn't work are not valid either. As long as it's between consenting adults and no one else is hurt, that's not for us to decide. And please, no one try to say that it will hurt the kids or the moral fiber of society because those same arguments have been made against same-sex marriage.

Perhaps Kevin and others can see the discrepancy more clearly because they've already been asked to step outside their own worldview. They've already been asked to draw the circle bigger to include more people. How can anyone in good conscience demand that the circle be expanded big enough to include them but not big enough to include someone else?

And please cut it out with the beastiality references. It's distracting and demeaning.

:clap well put

 

[standing_alone]

BUT that cannot be used to determine who is allowed to get married and who isn't. Similarly for polygamy (and polyandry); I can understand why many of either orientation would look at that as "yucky." I don't find it appealing myself. BUT that cannot be used to determine who is allowed to get married and who isn't.

I never said polygamy shouldn't be allowed based on some sort of "yuck" factor. I've stated that I'm indifferent. If someone wants to enter into a polygamous marriage, that's their choice to make, not mine.

Perhaps Kevin and others can see the discrepancy more clearly because they've already been asked to step outside their own worldview. They've already been asked to draw the circle bigger to include more people.

I guess I'm just close-minded or ignorant. *shrugs*

How can anyone in good conscience demand that the circle be expanded big enough to include them but not big enough to include someone else?

To the best of my awareness, I never said such a thing. This is what I think (in my bad conscience): I want marriage to be extended to homosexuals - obviously since I am a homosexual and would like to be able to get married someday. I am indifferent to the idea of polygamous marriage. I don't like the idea, but that is not a good reason to not allow someone to enter a polygamous marriage. I would be fine with people entering polygamous marriage, it's just not for me. If that makes me have a bad conscience or against equality, then whatever. I'm just starting not to care anymore.

And please cut it out with the beastiality references. It's distracting and demeaning.

Fine. Not a problem. Didn't mean to distract or demean you or anyone else.

 

[standing_alone]

Why do we have to start agreeing and finding common ground? I was just starting to warm up

Tis a shame, isn't it?

 

[lilithu]

<...>I've stated that I'm indifferent. If someone wants to enter into a polygamous marriage, that's their choice to make, not mine.
<...>
I want marriage to be extended to homosexuals - obviously since I am a homosexual and would like to be able to get married someday. I am indifferent to the idea of polygamous marriage.<...>

If you are indifferent then what is this argument about? And if you are not opposed, then why do you think I'm calling you "closed-minded" or suggesting that you are acting in "bad" conscience? I fail to see why you took my post as a personal affront.

So everyone's agreed then - let's keep religious and civil marriage separate and let's legalize same-sex marriages and polygamy/polyandry. Yay! :highfive: (If only it were that easy.)

Fine. Not a problem. Didn't mean to distract or demean you or anyone else.

By "demean" I was refering to you. It is demeaning to homosexuals to have beastiality automatically brought into the conversation whenever we talk about homosexuality. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[pdoel]

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.

Gotcha, that makes perfect sense. So, at one time, marriage was between people of the same race, same religion, meant to last forever. At one point, marriages of minors (or even with an adult and a minor) were common place. So over years, that changed.

Marriages with minors have become illegal. That was ok.
Marriages between races is now allowed. That was ok.
Marriages of people of different faiths is now allowed. That was ok.
Divorce is now common place. That was ok.

But marriages between same sex people automatically leads to polygamy, and must be stopped.

Glad to see someone making sense.

 

[standing_alone]

If you are indifferent then what is this argument about?

Which argument? I don't know. I guess I was trying to demonstrate how someone can be in favor of homosexual marriage and opposed to polygamous marriage. It wasn't a reflection of my own beliefs. Sorry. I guess I just like to debate.

And if you are not opposed, then why do you think I'm calling you "closed-minded" or suggesting that you are acting in "bad" conscience? I fail to see why you took my post as a personal affront.

I guess I thought you were addressing me because you quoted Kevmicsmi's post where he was responding to me about something. Sorry.

By "demean" I was refering to you. It is demeaning to homosexuals to have beastiality automatically brought into the conversation whenever we talk about homosexuality.

Wow, I'm stupid. Sorry.

Wouldn't you agree?

Uh huh.

 

[mr.guy]

And the argument for civil marriage is based solely on the recognized rights of consenting individuals to govern their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else. It is based on equity. It should not be based on the "yuck" factor.

I fear you've skipped a beat. The adjustment from soley hetero to homosexual marriages is practically intangible; still two people just making a go at it. A married group of three or more are going to bring something of an unprecedented bunch of "issues" to the legal mechanics table surrounding marriage (what if terry schiavo had two husbands, one for and one against her euthanasia?); not to mention divorce. With a little imagination, one can come up with countless complications a polygamous marriage can alter (or perhaps confuse) current marriage rights (for what that's worth). Resistance to polygamous/polyandrous marriage is not really inconsistent to gay marriage advocates and supporters; they are not equitable alterations to the current practice of marriage.

And please cut it out with the beastiality references. It's distracting and demeaning.

Sorry. Just thought i'd try to feel out this "slippery slope" i've heard so much of; seemed to me that the insinuation was that one "abomination" should naturally and uncontrolably beget another. If i'm too morally crippled as to be unable to determine the "harm" of homosexual marriage, it's likely i'll be equally hepless in the face of interspecies coupling. While i appreciate the extension of rights, I find it distracting to argue for polygamy as "identical" and "consistant" with homosexual marriage; one can easily support one whilst not the other with little fear of contradicting oneself. Slippery slope, indeed.

 

[standing_alone]

:clap Great post, mr.guy! I'd have given you frubals, but I've given out too many right now.

 

[lilithu]

I guess I was trying to demonstrate how someone can be in favor of homosexual marriage and opposed to polygamous marriage. It wasn't a reflection of my own beliefs. Sorry. I guess I just like to debate.

I guess I thought you were addressing me because you quoted Kevmicsmi's post where he was responding to me about something. Sorry.

Nah, I wasn't targeting you. I was trying to end the argument in general, trying to find common ground and get everyone to agree. I guess I don't really like debate, but I shouldn't get in the way of your and kevin's fun. Sorry.

Wow, I'm stupid. Sorry.

Not stupid, emotionally invested. And I certainly don't blame you for that!

All your unhappy faces are making me unhappy. Here :hug:

 

[standing_alone]

Nah, I wasn't targeting you. I was trying to end the argument in general, trying to find common ground and get everyone to agree. I guess I don't really like debate, but I shouldn't get in the way of your and kevin's fun. Sorry.

Nah, no need to apologize. It's a debate, you had every right to join in on the fun, even if it was getting in the way of Kevin's and my fun. Nah, just kidding, you weren't getting in the way at all. You made many valid points.

Not stupid, emotionally invested. And I certainly don't blame you for that!

Cool deal.

All your unhappy faces are making me unhappy. Here :hug:

Sorry about that. It's all good (I hope).:hug:

 

[nutshell]

Gotcha, that makes perfect sense. So, at one time, marriage was between people of the same race, same religion, meant to last forever. At one point, marriages of minors (or even with an adult and a minor) were common place. So over years, that changed.

Marriages with minors have become illegal. That was ok.
Marriages between races is now allowed. That was ok.
Marriages of people of different faiths is now allowed. That was ok.
Divorce is now common place. That was ok.

But marriages between same sex people automatically leads to polygamy, and must be stopped.

Glad to see someone making sense.

Please limit your responses to what I actually post. Correcting you is tiring.

I never said what was or was not OK. I agreed that there have always been changes and that changes will continue. Again, I did not say what was or was not OK...you assume too much.

There is almost no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will be a reality in the near future.

 

[pdoel]

Please limit your responses to what I actually post. Correcting you is tiring.

I never said what was or was not OK. I agreed that there have always been changes and that changes will continue. Again, I did not say what was or was not OK...you assume too much.

There is almost no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will be a reality in the near future.

Ahh, but see, that's it exactly. All of those changes DID occur. So at this point, to say, "Well, if we accept homosexual marriages, polygamy can't be far behind" doesn't really fly. We've accepted all those other changes, and we still don't have polygamy, or marriages with animals. So why is it ONLY homosexual marriages that will lead to polygamy?

There is no need to correct me. If anything, you have made a leap that has no basis. If you do not like it, do not equate two completely unrelated things, such as homosexual marriage and polygamy.

 

[nutshell]

Ahh, but see, that's it exactly. All of those changes DID occur. So at this point, to say, "Well, if we accept homosexual marriages, polygamy can't be far behind" doesn't really fly. We've accepted all those other changes, and we still don't have polygamy, or marriages with animals. So why is it ONLY homosexual marriages that will lead to polygamy?

There is no need to correct me. If anything, you have made a leap that has no basis. If you do not like it, do not equate two completely unrelated things, such as homosexual marriage and polygamy.

That's right. We don't have polygamy or marriage with animals, we have homosexual marriage. :sarcastic

So, you see, the changes over time may have contributed to the acceptance of homosexual marriage and continued changes may be the precursors to yet more changes.

 

[mr.guy]

So, you see, the changes over time may have contributed to the acceptance of homosexual marriage and continued changes may be the precursors to yet more changes.

So basically, if anything (at all) changes, one can only conclude that every conceivable change is immenent? If i have you right, gay marriage should rightly herald a new #1 album for Rush, right?

 

[pdoel]

So, you see, the changes over time may have contributed to the acceptance of homosexual marriage and continued changes may be the precursors to yet more changes.

Which again, makes my point valid. If you are going to use that type of logic, that homosexual marriage is going to lead to polygamy, then you can only come to the conclusion that allowing ANY marriage, will eventually lead to polygamy.

Which brings us back to my original statement. If marriage is not a right, and something that we can deny to people just because we don't agree with it, then let's remove that right from everyone. We don't need marriage to keep the population going.

Obviously, according to some arguments here, allowing any marriage will eventually lead to sex with animals and multiple people. So let's just outlaw it all together.

 

[nutshell]

Which again, makes my point valid. If you are going to use that type of logic, that homosexual marriage is going to lead to polygamy, then you can only come to the conclusion that allowing ANY marriage, will eventually lead to polygamy.

All marriage won't lead to polygamy, just the constant changing of it. By thy way, while my church doesn't practice polygamy it is considered okay when authorized by God.

Which brings us back to my original statement. If marriage is not a right, and something that we can deny to people just because we don't agree with it, then let's remove that right from everyone. We don't need marriage to keep the population going.

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

Obviously, according to some arguments here, allowing any marriage will eventually lead to sex with animals and multiple people. So let's just outlaw it all together.

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

 

[standing_alone]

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

What's marriage about, to you?