Now that Gay Marriage is legal in NY.

[blackout]

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

Does this mean you support only the "one husband, many wives"
model of Polygamy? As this is the most "traditional"?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Does this mean you support only the "one husband, many wives"
model of Polygamy? As this is the most "traditional"?

For the sake of argument, I take no more issue with polyamory than I do with homosexual marriage, but in the truest sense, monogamy has been institutionalized for 500 years or so in Western culture.

 

[Warren Clark]

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.

More power to them.
I don't personally like it, but I have no right imposing my personal beliefs on them.

 

[Warren Clark]

[youtube]igB0akHTMh0[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Gay Marriage explained‬‏

EDIT: Best I can do is a link for the time being.

LMAO. thats too funny. The character arguing for the change is an idiot... oh wait this is made up...

 

[Draka]

LMAO. thats too funny. The character arguing for the change is an idiot... oh wait this is made up...

Yeah, it is pretty stupid. Whoever wrote it up was really trying to make the woman look like an idiot and somehow make out the whole stance supporting gay marriage to be as stupid. Unfortunately for the creator it only made them look like an idiot.

 

[Warren Clark]

Right.

 

[Warren Clark]

YouTube - ‪True Life I'm Polyamorous: Jim‬‏

Polyamory hehehe... devils advocate... o wait I am the devil... muahahahaha.

 

[ninerbuff]

For the sake of argument, I take no more issue with polyamory than I do with homosexual marriage, but in the truest sense, monogamy has been institutionalized for 500 years or so in Western culture.

Maybe, but how many of those monogamous marriages have affairs hidden in them?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Maybe, but how many of those monogamous marriages have affairs hidden in them?

Since when does the failure by a small relative number to uphold the institution become grounds for doing away with it, and redefining it?

 

[ninerbuff]

Since when does the failure by a small relative number to uphold the institution become grounds for doing away with it, and redefining it?

Small number? 50% divorce rate, much of it due to infidelity is a small number?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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'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.

Exactly what do you think is the rationale behind the legalization of same-sex marriage? Do you really think it's about a desire to be nice to "second class citizens"? I don't.

I mean, I do think that same-sex couples are treated like second-class citizens, but my rationale for same-sex marriage is based on other things... fairness, for instance. Or equality: effectively, same-sex marriage is simply the removal of legal gender discrimination in the provision of marriage, just as we've removed legal gender discrimination in most other types of laws.

The mere fact that homosexual people are looked down upon by certain segments of society doesn't mean that this is the reason to improve their treatment.

Same-sex couples are second class citizens, and legalization of same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. These are separate statements. IMO, it's not the case that legalization of same-sex marriage is the right thing to do because same-sex couples are second-class citizens... the reasons lie elsewhere.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Exactly what do you think is the rationale behind the legalization of same-sex marriage? Do you really think it's about a desire to be nice to "second class citizens"? I don't.

I mean, I do think that same-sex couples are treated like second-class citizens, but my rationale for same-sex marriage is based on other things... fairness, for instance. Or equality: effectively, same-sex marriage is simply the removal of legal gender discrimination in the provision of marriage, just as we've removed legal gender discrimination in most other types of laws.

The mere fact that homosexual people are looked down upon by certain segments of society doesn't mean that this is the reason to improve their treatment.

Same-sex couples are second class citizens, and legalization of same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. These are separate statements. IMO, it's not the case that legalization of same-sex marriage is the right thing to do because same-sex couples are second-class citizens... the reasons lie elsewhere.

The entire justifications I hear have to do with the fact that homosexuality is looked down upon, therefore must be protected. I personally disagree that they must be protected, and don't get me wrong, I don't advocate violating anyone's civil or natural rights as they stand, but to elevate a quasi-social group who choose to engage in deviant behavior just because their behavior is looked down upon is a bit beyond the pale. Allowing them the power to change our societal standards places everyone other than them as second-class citizens.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Why not? Marriage was originally polygamous anyway. The "institution" of marriage was "redefined" when people started to insist that it be exclusively monogamous. The great thing about secular societies is that religious beliefs (are supposed to) only apply to those who actually hold those beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The entire justifications I hear have to do with the fact that homosexuality is looked down upon, therefore must be protected.

I've never heard any serious advocate of same-sex marriage make any claim that comes close to this. Where are you getting this from, exactly?

I personally disagree that they must be protected, and don't get me wrong, I don't advocate violating anyone's civil or natural rights as they stand, but to elevate a quasi-social group who choose to engage in deviant behavior just because their behavior is looked down upon is a bit beyond the pale.

No, what's beyond the pale is denying the right to equal treatment under the law to an entire class of people for no reason other than the personal distaste of a few. It runs completely counter to the principles that a free society is based on.

Allowing them the power to change our societal standards places everyone other than them as second-class citizens.

So legalizing same-sex marriage makes straight people victims? That's ridiculous.

And it's not a matter of letting same-sex couples "change our societal standards". Same-sex marriage is an expression of societal standards that even opponents if same-sex marriage generally at least pay lip-service to: liberty, equality, justice, etc. Keeping same-sex marriage illegal is an attack on those values... and when it comes to that, I actually agree with you: letting those groups who oppose same-sex marriage write the rules for everyone (generally as part if an effort to align secular law with their own moral codes) makes second-class citizens of everyone else... and not just same-sex couples, but anyone whose beliefs differ from those in power.

 

[Warren Clark]

The entire justifications I hear have to do with the fact that homosexuality is looked down upon, therefore must be protected. I personally disagree that they must be protected, and don't get me wrong, I don't advocate violating anyone's civil or natural rights as they stand, but to elevate a quasi-social group who choose to engage in deviant behavior just because their behavior is looked down upon is a bit beyond the pale. Allowing them the power to change our societal standards places everyone other than them as second-class citizens.

"deviant behaviour" is an assumption of morality produced by specific religious affiliation and its teachings.
i think heterosexuality is immoral and deviant. So they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Same goes for the polyamorous.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

"deviant behaviour" is an assumption of morality produced by specific religious affiliation and its teachings.
i think heterosexuality is immoral and deviant. So they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Same goes for the polyamorous.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned.

Ok, if you'll bite, I'll illustrate to you that homosexual behavior is deviant. First question: what is the ratio of homosexuals per heterosexual in this country? Second, how do you define deviant? I await your responses.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I've never heard any serious advocate of same-sex marriage make any claim that comes close to this. Where are you getting this from, exactly?


No, what's beyond the pale is denying the right to equal treatment under the law to an entire class of people for no reason other than the personal distaste of a few. It runs completely counter to the principles that a free society is based on.


So legalizing same-sex marriage makes straight people victims? That's ridiculous.

And it's not a matter of letting same-sex couples "change our societal standards". Same-sex marriage is an expression of societal standards that even opponents if same-sex marriage generally at least pay lip-service to: liberty, equality, justice, etc. Keeping same-sex marriage illegal is an attack on those values... and when it comes to that, I actually agree with you: letting those groups who oppose same-sex marriage write the rules for everyone (generally as part if an effort to align secular law with their own moral codes) makes second-class citizens of everyone else... and not just same-sex couples, but anyone whose beliefs differ from those in power.

Let me get this straight, pseudo-righteous indignation aside, your response is "nuh-uh", right?

 

[Father Heathen]

Ok, if you'll bite, I'll illustrate to you that homosexual behavior is deviant. First question: what is the ratio of homosexuals per heterosexual in this country? Second, how do you define deviant? I await your responses.

What's the ratio of jews to non-jews in this country?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

What's the ratio of jews to non-jews in this country?

Attempting to equate a religious-ethnic minority with a quasi-social group again...naughty, naughty

Didn't your philosophy instructor crack your knuckles over non-sequitor arguments?

 

[Quagmire]

Hmmmmmmm...

You proposed applying the term deviant based on ratios....

Ok, if you'll bite, I'll illustrate to you that homosexual behavior is deviant. First question: what is the ratio of homosexuals per heterosexual in this country? Second, how do you define deviant? I await your responses.

FH, following the formula that you suggested, points out that it could just as easily be applied to a group that you belong to....

What's the ratio of jews to non-jews in this country?

And here you're basically saying "Sorry, we have to use my formula, but only when it suits my purposes:

Attempting to equate a religious-ethnic minority with a quasi-social group again...naughty, naughty

Didn't your philosophy instructor crack your knuckles over non-sequitor arguments?

Some people would call this a double standard. Other people would call it a lot of other things.