• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Now that Gay Marriage is legal in NY.

HiddenDjinn

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
It seems there's a fervor to attempt to redefine marriage in the US. New York just passed a state law legalizing gay marriage, essentially redefining the institution of marriage. How long until polygamy will be allowed? Seriously, if there is a group of multiple women who wish to marry the same man, they should be allowed, and vice versa.
 

blackout

Violet.
In America Today, Poly marriages would be equal opportunity contracts.
(ie any arrangement of males and/or females)

I guess people always need that 'next something' to "worry about".
"The next evil and horrible thing to come"
The "slippery slope" down to the bottom of the icy (or firey) depths.

None of us will ever live to see Poly marriages.
Most people are still completely unaware
that people even form committed Poly families (in differing arrangements).
Perhaps the Poly community, will at least be able to come out of the closet more easily now. ?
Though some... maybe many.... people will be... disturbed ... by it.
The conservative religious will probably fall apart at the mere idea of Polyamorous families. :rolleyes:

It'll be the the next demon to try and beat down. :(
 
Last edited:

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
It seems there's a fervor to attempt to redefine marriage in the US. New York just passed a state law legalizing gay marriage, essentially redefining the institution of marriage.
Not at all. It's still a legally binding contract between consenting adults. It's just that now, one less state treats its sexual minorities as second-class citizens.

How long until polygamy will be allowed? Seriously, if there is a group of multiple women who wish to marry the same man, they should be allowed, and vice versa.
And this affects you how?
 

HiddenDjinn

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Not at all. It's still a legally binding contract between consenting adults. It's just that now, one less state treats its sexual minorities as second-class citizens.
Yeah, yeah, the second class citizens plead. There are laws against zoophilia, so are zoophiles being treated as second class citizens when they are prosecuted? Further, about sexual minorities, polyamory is much more persecuted than homosexuality.
And this affects you how?
Must one have a personal stake to make a valid argument? If so, you really shouldn't make any argument regarding heterosexual attitudes, or religious attitudes, or conservative attitudes. As a matter of fact, in that sense, you probably should sit in one dark corner of this forum, leaving those who don't share your experiences and personal prejudices the hell alone.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Yeah, yeah, the second class citizens plead. There are laws against zoophilia, so are zoophiles being treated as second class citizens when they are prosecuted? Further, about sexual minorities, polyamory is much more persecuted than homosexuality.
Because comparing homosexuality to zoophilia is so ******* original? :facepalm:

What part of consent do you not understand?

Must one have a personal stake to make a valid argument? If so, you really shouldn't make any argument regarding heterosexual attitudes, or religious attitudes, or conservative attitudes. As a matter of fact, in that sense, you probably should sit in one dark corner of this forum, leaving those who don't share your experiences and personal prejudices the hell alone.
No. One must have a valid reason to deny equal rights to minorities.
 

HiddenDjinn

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Storm,
Exactly where from my argument did you infer that I stated a word against a particular minority? I think you may need to take a break from here if you see "homophobia" at every turn, even when none is being expressed.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Storm,
Exactly where from my argument did you infer that I stated a word against a particular minority? I think you may need to take a break from here if you see "homophobia" at every turn, even when none is being expressed.
Dude, you compared us to zoophiles. That's pretty bigoted, and I think you know it.

I didn't leap to any conclusions, I was trying to have a civil discussion. Would you care to address my arguments, or would you prefer to continue making an *** of yourself?
 

HiddenDjinn

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Dude, you compared us to zoophiles. That's pretty bigoted, and I think you know it.
No, I compared your "second class citizens" pleading to that one would hear from zoophiles, or pedophiles, or cannibals, or any other group of historical "undesirables".
I didn't leap to any conclusions, I was trying to have a civil discussion. Would you care to address my arguments, or would you prefer to continue making an *** of yourself?
I'm arguing that Polyamory should carry the same legal protections that Homosexuality enjoys. I don't see where you've said anything regarding the OP as such.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
No, I compared your "second class citizens" pleading to that one would hear from zoophiles, or pedophiles, or cannibals, or any other group of historical "undesirables".
Nice backpedal.

All the examples you cite are harmful. Where is the harm in homosexual marriage, or homosex in general?

Laws exist for the protection of the citizenry. What do queers do that you require protection from?

I'm arguing that Polyamory should carry the same legal protections that Homosexuality enjoys. I don't see where you've said anything regarding the OP as such.
Fine. I agree, or would if I thought you were sincere. Since it's obvious you were indulging in the slippery slope fallacy, I skipped ahead and asked how it affected you.

All caught up now?
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
Any consensual relationship between adults being labeled marriage and enjoying equal benefits to "traditional marriage" is fine by me. Man-Man, Woman-Woman, Man-Woman, Woman-Woman-Man, Woman-Woman-Woman. Who cares?

Anyway, all historic records indicate that traditional marriage was very likely polygamous marriage, so by deduction...
 
Last edited:

xkatz

Well-Known Member
It seems there's a fervor to attempt to redefine marriage in the US. New York just passed a state law legalizing gay marriage, essentially redefining the institution of marriage. How long until polygamy will be allowed? Seriously, if there is a group of multiple women who wish to marry the same man, they should be allowed, and vice versa.

So...?
 

HiddenDjinn

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Nice backpedal.

All the examples you cite are harmful. Where is the harm in homosexual marriage, or homosex in general?
If I made an argument that homosexuality was harmful, it would promptly be ignored, so there's no point.
Laws exist for the protection of the citizenry. What do queers do that you require protection from?
Again, there's no point in arguing this.
Fine. I agree, or would if I thought you were sincere. Since it's obvious you were indulging in the slippery slope fallacy, I skipped ahead and asked how it affected you.
Obvious how? I've for years been a proponent of the right to polygamy, whether or not I was personally interested in indulging in such is irrelevant. Ask my wife for verification.
All caught up now?
No, you really haven't caught up. I'll let you know when you have.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Right.

wasserman.gif
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
It seems there's a fervor to attempt to redefine marriage in the US. New York just passed a state law legalizing gay marriage, essentially redefining the institution of marriage. How long until polygamy will be allowed? Seriously, if there is a group of multiple women who wish to marry the same man, they should be allowed, and vice versa.

If multiple individuals wish to be in a relationship and it works well for all of them then I don't see the problem. I really don't think there is any reason that they shouldn't be allowed, I just think that it may take more time to figure out how to pull it off legally with regards to federal rights and benefits than with the marriage of just two people. Different things to hammer out and with the state of the country and who is running it it may take quite some time for there to even be anyone who will honestly try to work it out. As you see, we seem to be having enough issues with just getting same sex marriage recognized federally, and it's the same thing as hetero marriage when it comes to laws and rights. Eventually we'll get there...but there's no telling how long that eventually will be.
 

blackout

Violet.
Any consensual relationship between adults being labeled marriage and enjoying equal benefits to "traditional marriage" is fine by me. Man-Man, Woman-Woman, Man-Woman, Woman-Woman-Man, Woman-Woman-Woman. Who cares?

Anyway, all historic records indicate that traditional marriage was very likely polygamous marriage, so by deduction...

Well, yes, but only by the One Man, many Women model.
and occasionally by the one Women, many Men model.

Homosexual Marriage will certainly open the doors for
other Poly arrangements,
in the public eye,
(ie, M,M,F triangle, F,F,M triangle, M,M,M F,F,F M,M,F,F ..... )
and this is good,
but they are not traditional by any means,
and the conservative religious will treat it like the plague.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Not at all. It's still a legally binding contract between consenting adults. It's just that now, one less state treats its sexual minorities as second-class citizens.
Yeah, yeah, the second class citizens plead. There are laws against zoophilia, so are zoophiles being treated as second class citizens when they are prosecuted? Further, about sexual minorities, polyamory is much more persecuted than homosexuality.

Zoophilia does not fit the "consenting adults" part of Storms reply, and insinuates a non-consensual sexual relationship to be on even par with an adult consensual relationship.

What exactly do you see wrong with allowing consensual adults the opportunity to legally marry?
 

HiddenDjinn

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Zoophilia does not fit the "consenting adults" part of Storms reply, and insinuates a non-consensual sexual relationship to be on even par with an adult consensual relationship.

What exactly do you see wrong with allowing consensual adults the opportunity to legally marry?
I take issue with redefining marriage to accomodate a select group of people who find traditional marriage distasteful.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
I take issue with redefining marriage to accomodate a select group of people who find traditional marriage distasteful.

By what definition of "traditional marriage" are you going by?

If one was to go by the idea that "traditional marriage" was a man with wives and concubines then isn't making two-person heterosexual marriage redefining marriage to accommodate those who find "traditional marriage" distasteful?

If one takes "traditional marriage" to be the joining of two consenting adults into a loving lifetime commitment then the restricting it to only man and woman would be redefining it and allowing divorce is redefining it.

If "traditional marriage" is a "sacred union before and blessed by God" then allowing atheists and non-Abrahamic theists to marry is redefining marriage.

If "traditional marriage" is the union of two people with the goal being to procreate then allowing infertile people ("fixed", post-menopausal, or otherwise infertile) to marry would be redefining marriage.

And so on and so forth.
 
Top