Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Gay marriage


detlef
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is about reducing civil rights in individuals based on their sex; no jobs, no right to vote, etc.

 

well, leave it to a progressive to argue that letting people do what the hell they want is reducing their civil rights.

 

here's the thing. polygamy is outlawed and shunned primarily because, as you sorta point out, it's like a marriage ponzi scheme, it's an unsustainable model on a society-wide scale. so it's immoral, you shouldn't be allowed to live that way, the government needs to make that lifestyle illegal to protect society as a whole from that corruption. well, to me that sounds an awful lot like the justification gay marriage opponents offer for their position. you apparently share with gay marriage opponents the idea that it is proper to legislate what consenting adults do in the bedroom and with their domestic situation based on morality, you just don't think gay marriage is immoral and they do. you and they view the issue as a question of what is good and correct for society, and seek to impose that view by rule of law. I view it as an issue of consenting adults being allowed to define their domestic situation however they please, regardless of how I might feel about any of the potential situations morally -- and under that view, same sex marriage and polygamy are indeed pretty closely related and symmetrical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think there may be some practical issues with polygamy aside from the "enslavement" thing.

 

Survivor benefits - one of the objections to gay marriage is that it would extend survivor benefits (which it would, by a very tiny amount) but what would happen in a polygamous situation? Would all xx number of wives receive benefits?

Gender balance - there's a reason the number of boys / girls born is extremely close. Polygamy on a significant scale might damage the gene pool.

1) Survivor benefits. It would seem like a natural solution is that the amount doesn't go up, it just gets divided up more than one way. Net zero sum. A similar deal could be made with health insurance. Typically, a spouse costs something to add to a company-sponsored plan and kids more still. You could just charge more per spouse

 

2) The gender balance thing should not be an issue. Again, just because the only examples right now of polygamy are one man, multiple wives, doesn't mean groups of other shapes would not begin to exist if the notion of "marriage" was removed and it was simply people choosing to create a union, even a platonic one. I also don't think that most would choose this lifestyle, so I doubt it would make much of a difference.

 

Keep in mind. I'm not saying this would be better if more people shacked up in groups. Just saying that it seems like something that we don't need to be protected from. There are enough crappy two person relationships to cross that off the list as one of the reasons why we should limit unions to only two people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gheys will morally corrupt our society. check

Marriage is only for a man and a woman. check

Its a slippery slope.... then what you going to do, let a guy marry three women or a goat? check

 

 

Adam and eve, not adam and steve!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, leave it to a progressive to argue that letting people do what the hell they want is reducing their civil rights.

 

here's the thing. polygamy is outlawed and shunned primarily because, as you sorta point out, it's like a marriage ponzi scheme, it's an unsustainable model on a society-wide scale. so it's immoral, you shouldn't be allowed to live that way, the government needs to make that lifestyle illegal to protect society as a whole from that corruption. well, to me that sounds an awful lot like the justification gay marriage opponents offer for their position. you apparently share with gay marriage opponents the idea that it is proper to legislate what consenting adults do in the bedroom and with their domestic situation based on morality, you just don't think gay marriage is immoral and they do. you and they view the issue as a question of what is good and correct for society, and seek to impose that view by rule of law. I view it as an issue of consenting adults being allowed to define their domestic situation however they please, regardless of how I might feel about any of the potential situations morally -- and under that view, same sex marriage and polygamy are indeed pretty closely related and symmetrical.

 

 

That's all certainly very interesting, but that is certainly not my intent. Does one's religious freedoms enable them to create an environment in this country where you can deny someone their civil rights? The answer to that is very clear. That's the question here as I see it, and that is nowhere near your clever use of semantics to twist what I said into something it was not. Polygamy as practiced in this country made women second class citizens. They are not. neither are gay people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does one's religious freedoms enable them to create an environment in this country where you can deny someone their civil rights? The answer to that is very clear. That's the question here as I see it, and that is nowhere near your clever use of semantics to twist what I said into something it was not. Polygamy as practiced in this country made women second class citizens. They are not.

 

I get it. you think polygamy is wrong and you think government should forcibly impose that judgment on people who feel it is right. it's fine that you feel that way, and it's fine that others feel the same way about the gheys. but I would let the grown-ass women and men who practice polygamy (or want to) speak for their own civil rights. it is beyond patronizing into utter absurdity to say that dictating to them who they sleep and live with is protecting their civil rights, and that letting them make their own decisions would make them second class citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all certainly very interesting, but that is certainly not my intent. Does one's religious freedoms enable them to create an environment in this country where you can deny someone their civil rights? The answer to that is very clear. That's the question here as I see it, and that is nowhere near your clever use of semantics to twist what I said into something it was not. Polygamy as practiced in this country made women second class citizens. They are not. neither are gay people.

And what about the number of traditional marriages where women were treated as 2nd class citizens by their husbands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like we've really been sold a bill of goods with the lesbians. Sounds great on paper, but the reality doesn't live up to the hype. You see a pair of them out somewhere, inevitably one or both of them look like a dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the number of traditional marriages where women were treated as 2nd class citizens by their husbands?

 

Well, if thy hadn't acted like first class biatches...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like we've really been sold a bill of goods with the lesbians. Sounds great on paper, but the reality doesn't live up to the hype. You see a pair of them out somewhere, inevitably one or both of them look like a dude.

 

 

i was fortunate enough to see the wedding pocs of 2 chicks and dude lookin dude wore a tux :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like we've really been sold a bill of goods with the lesbians. Sounds great on paper, but the reality doesn't live up to the hype. You see a pair of them out somewhere, inevitably one or both of them look like a dude.

I was going to regret opening up this lame thread, but Matt makes it all worth it. :tup:

 

The part I never understand is why do girls that are straight for awhile and then "turn" gay end up dating a chick that looks like a lame version of a dude that they never would've talked to when they were straight? I mean, if you decide you're into chicks, at least go find a hot one. For example, that one redhead chick from sex and the city dated a dude for like a decade and then breaks up, goes gay, and the chick looks like a frumpy dude. I agree, lesbians are just over hyped. The fake ones in college that get drunk and make out but are really interested in deep dicken are the better variety. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooo...wife and I planned a little romance night to celebrate moving back to the city where we met. We got a room at the Hilton downtown and went to Trader Vic's for dinner.

 

What we failed to investigate......anyone happen to know what was going on in Atlanta this past weekend? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooo...wife and I planned a little romance night to celebrate moving back to the city where we met. We got a room at the Hilton downtown and went to Trader Vic's for dinner.

 

What we failed to investigate......anyone happen to know what was going on in Atlanta this past weekend? :wacko:

Occupy Atlanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it. you think polygamy is wrong and you think government should forcibly impose that judgment on people who feel it is right. it's fine that you feel that way, and it's fine that others feel the same way about the gheys. but I would let the grown-ass women and men who practice polygamy (or want to) speak for their own civil rights. it is beyond patronizing into utter absurdity to say that dictating to them who they sleep and live with is protecting their civil rights, and that letting them make their own decisions would make them second class citizens.

 

 

No, you don't. When polygamy was practiced in Utah, in many areas it was in fact codified with local laws. Women were not allowed to vote - it was ILLEGAL. You do understand that is different than having the right to vote and exercising the right not to vote? It was ILLEGAL for them to have jobs. You do understand that is different than having the right to work and exercising the right not to work? I ask because it sure doesn't appear so. I am against litigating away civil rights of any group for any reason. You'd rather twist part of what I said and ignore the rest to put weak ass words into my mouth. That's how poor your argument is: you are having it with yourself. :wacko: Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooo...wife and I planned a little romance night to celebrate moving back to the city where we met. We got a room at the Hilton downtown and went to Trader Vic's for dinner.

 

What we failed to investigate......anyone happen to know what was going on in Atlanta this past weekend? :wacko:

Packers pep rally on Saturday, GB/ATL game on Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information