quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Polygamy - The state's job of settling desputes in the area of divorce becomes expotentially more complicated as you add more people to it. How do you divide a house 4 ways? Who gets custody of the kids? Do they spend 1 week with dad, one week with mom, one week with other mom and one week with other dad? Letting two same sex people get married does significantly affect the complexity of sorting out property.
Perhaps in your last sentence, you mean "does not". In any case, the argument that the state would not allow polygamy (in the case that same-sex marriage is allowed) because it is complex is not entirely convincing.
I mean, have you paid your taxes recently? The state is certainly amenable to complex rules.
I suspect that there are other more important reasons...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are significant numbers of examples of both polygamy and prostitution that do not involve lack of consent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Polygamy is a different relationship from one to one pairings, in much the same way that a n body gravity problem where n is greater than 2 is extremely different from a 2 body problem. There's no compelling reason to think that allowing a same sex one to one pairing necessitates allowing polygamy. It's a separate issue.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, history has shown that Polygamy and Prostitution both are too often exploitive. That is not the history of homosexual relationships, at least no more so than heterosexual ones. That is why the state has an interest in preventing or discouraging the former while it has none for the latter.
Or try this: Prostitution and Polygamy both are threats to marriage, for many people who hire a prostitute are married, and polygamy greatly scews the number of available women and men to form marriages, forcing the unlucky men to remain unmarried as the wealthy, fortunate ones corner the woman market.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Thats not entirely illuminating either. One could just as easily write.
"Same sex marriage" is a different relationship from "male" to "female" pairings, in much the same way that "a positively charged ion and a negatively charged ion interact is extremely different from two positively charged ions". There's no compelling reason to think that allowing a "opposite" sex one to one pairing necessitates allowing "a same sex pairing". It's a separate issue.
Which is exactly as helpful.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Polygamy is a different relationship from one to one pairings, in much the same way that a n body gravity problem where n is greater than 2 is extremely different from a 2 body problem. There's no compelling reason to think that allowing a same sex one to one pairing necessitates allowing polygamy. It's a separate issue.
It depends on your reason for advocating same sex civil marriage as to whether it's a separate issue. It's certainly a separate issue based on my reasoning.
However, the network increase doesn't justify making it a felony.
quote:If you give me examples, I could tell you whether I think, in theory, they should be legal.
1.) A poor woman wants to eat. She goes out on the street and sells sexual favors for money.
2.) A college woman with no real financial problems wants extra money for clothes and recreation.
3.) A college woman with no real financial problems wants extra money to establish her finances on a sounder footing after graduation.
4.) A woman with a broker takes exclusive bookings for liasons with men desiring her, netting her a six-figure income.
5.) A man and two women believe that God wants them to live in a polygamous marriage. The man is 22, the women are 20 and 18. They do not seek a marriage license and never represent themselves as legal spouses (insurance, taxes, etc.).
6.) Same as 5, with ages 30, 30, and 30.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, history has shown that Polygamy and Prostitution both are too often exploitive. That is not the history of homosexual relationships, at least no more so than heterosexual ones. That is why the state has an interest in preventing or discouraging the former while it has none for the latter.
The state isn't "discouraging" the former, it's making them criminal, v. denying a particular benefit to the latter. There are two degrees of difference there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
btw, I don't think polygamy should be illegal and don't have a problem with state recognized polygamy so long as some very strict criteria are met. But that's an argument for another thread.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, No, it is not for the reasons laid out in this and other threads which establish why people think they should be treated as the same in regards to this issue.
Straight and gay marriage are different, but, as has been argued in many, many, many places, these differences don't seem to many people to be important in regards to laws regarding it. Legally, there are a very few differences that appear easily remedied. Social dynamically, there haven't been any consistently demonstrated negative differences, which is also the case for a host of other aspects of marriage, such as child-raising fitness.
On the other hand, saying that if you allow gay marriage, you have to allow polygamy is not giving any reason that the differences between the two are irrelevant. Because you are adding a extremely significant increase in complexity, both in a social dynamics and legal context, this seems to me to be an important and extremely difficult if not impossible step.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Thats not entirely illuminating either. One could just as easily write.
"Same sex marriage" is a different relationship from "male" to "female" pairings, in much the same way that "a positively charged ion and a negatively charged ion interact is extremely different from two positively charged ions". There's no compelling reason to think that allowing a "opposite" sex one to one pairing necessitates allowing "a same sex pairing". It's a separate issue.
Which is exactly as helpful.
I disagree with Squick that it isn't an issue, but I don't disagree that the number is an issue.
The reason I think it's an issue is that we've decided to revisit one of the universal attributes of legal marriage that has existed since this country was founded (differing sex of the participants) in the name of allowing greater personal freedom. We have a demonstrable population that is denied a particular expression of their personal freedom by another of the universal attributes (only two participants). We owe it to them to explain why this attribute can't be changed.
It so happens that Squick's analogy of the 2-body problem v. the n-body problem is a very good metaphor for my reasons for making the one change and not the other. But I do think a quick dismissal is unwarrented. It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, both for the opposition to same sex civil marriage and to those seeking not necessarily legal recognition of polygamy, but the right to practice it without being thrown in jail.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, You're making them issues combined in an underlying spirit (re-examining the attributes of legal marriage), which I'm fine with. I was using the idea of them being separate issues in regards to the specifics; as a way of saying that consideration of one is separate from the other. It is possible that, as we are re-examining marriage, we'll decide to allow or at least decriminalize polygamy, but this decision does not rest on the outcome of the gay marriage decision, but rather on a separate consideration of the aspects of polygamy itself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you give me examples, I could tell you whether I think, in theory, they should be legal.
1.) A poor woman wants to eat. She goes out on the street and sells sexual favors for money.
2.) A college woman with no real financial problems wants extra money for clothes and recreation.
3.) A college woman with no real financial problems wants extra money to establish her finances on a sounder footing after graduation.
4.) A woman with a broker takes exclusive bookings for liasons with men desiring her, netting her a six-figure income.
5.) A man and two women believe that God wants them to live in a polygamous marriage. The man is 22, the women are 20 and 18. They do not seek a marriage license and never represent themselves as legal spouses (insurance, taxes, etc.).
6.) Same as 5, with ages 30, 30, and 30.
1) I think that woman is in a position to be exploited and that we - as human beings if not as a society - have an obligation to protect rather than punish her.
2, 3, 4) I don't see how they differ from a 2) a college student who sleeps with (or dates or marries) someone because he buys her pretty clothes and takes her fun places - not illegal; 3) Sleeps with (or marries) someone who helps to support her; or 4) Sleeps with (or marries) someone who can support her really well. All of those things we allow.
5, 6) What is stopping that from happening now? I would be concerned with the "God wants" part as that is frequently used to justify abuse. Is the 22 year-old man calling the shots or does he get his orders from "higher up"? Sometimes consent is more than a matter of age.
As you may be able to tell, my concern with the legality of these actions is one of informed consent and exploitation. I believe that society has an obligation to protect its weaker members. This is not, historically, an issue with they types of SSM marriages we are talking about. As a matter of fact, it would give partners more security and status and legal protection.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're making them issues combined in an underlying spirit (re-examining the attributes of legal marriage), which I'm fine with.
OK, that makes sense. I tend to see them as discussions about the nature of legal recognition of marriage itself - that being the only reason I was able to reach a decision on this issue at all. To me, this was never a discussion about specifics. Your distinction here clarifies your original post about the 2-body problem and removes my objection (which was never to the analogy.
The main reason I participate in these discussion is not the specific outcome, but to encourage more precise thinking about the nature of law and legitimacy of government action in general. I care about the specific outcome, but it's all been said at this point. The larger philosophical question is what I truly care about.
quote:I was using the idea of them being separate issues in regards to the specifics; as a way of saying that consideration of one is separate from the other. It is possible that, as we are re-examining marriage, we'll decide to allow or at least decriminalize polygamy, but this decision does not rest on the outcome of the gay marriage decision, but rather on a separate consideration of the aspects of polygamy itself.
True, but hopefully also using the new paradigm of legal v. social entities that I've been advocating. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that woman is in a position to be exploited and that we - as human beings if not as a society - have an obligation to protect rather than punish her.
What about the men who hire her?
quote:5, 6) What is stopping that from happening now? I would be concerned with the "God wants" part as that is frequently used to justify abuse. Is the 22 year-old man calling the shots or does he get his orders from "higher up"? Sometimes consent is more than a matter of age.
It's a felony, and the fact of such a relationship has been used, fairly recently, to justify removal of children and placement in an orphanage.
I'm not sure I follow the overall gist of your post. You keep qualifying the answers with concerns over exploitation. Are you advocating that we add an element to the crimes "illegal if exploitation occurs"? Or are you advocating making non-exploitative instances of commonly exploitative situations illegal in order to prevent the exploitative instances?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I think thats a very good summary of the reasons why we should be considering polygamy (in relation to same-sex marriage), since its currently banned for many of the same reasons that same-sex marriage was until recently(sorta) banned.
MrSquickly: I was just saying that the metaphor by it self, is pretty useless. If we have outlined "reasons laid out in this and other threads which establish why people think they should be treated as the same in regards to this issue" we should specifically examine each reason and show how it is or is not applicable to polygamy.
In particular, it seems short-sighted / hypocritical to dismiss polygamy off-hand with a casual remark while going for same-sex marriage.
The main arguments against same-sex marriage, that it degrades the institution of marriage, that it is against Judeo-Christian values, etc. mostly seem to be cross-applicable against polygamy.
On the other side, the arguments for same-sex marriage, that it doesn't hurt marriage, that we should observe separation of church and state, that marriage should be defined by love and two men/women in love == one man + woman, etc. also seem cross-applicable for polygamy.
In particular, it seems that we have defined marriage due to an initial religious thrust, that is to say the religions that came to dominate the Western world favoured chastity and as a close second, monogamy. Then we rationalised it afterwards.
It may be an interesting exercise to take a portion of the thread, take the arguments for/pro same-sex marriage and see how they relate to polygamy. I do not think that the results will be a trivial dismissal of it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:5, 6) What is stopping that from happening now? I would be concerned with the "God wants" part as that is frequently used to justify abuse. Is the 22 year-old man calling the shots or does he get his orders from "higher up"? Sometimes consent is more than a matter of age.
It's a felony, and the fact of such a relationship has been used, fairly recently, to justify removal of children and placement in an orphanage.
I'm not sure I follow the overall gist of your post. You keep qualifying the answers with concerns over exploitation. Are you advocating that we add an element to the crimes "illegal if exploitation occurs"? Or are you advocating making non-exploitative instances of commonly exploitative situations illegal in order to prevent the exploitative instances?
Maybe I am misunderstanding your scenario. Extra marital affairs are not illegal. Extra marital affairs with roommates are not illegal. Men having children with more than one woman is not illegal. Why is the combination a felony?
My gist is that if, for example, a woman marries a man because he is old and rich and she wants his inheritance, not only is that legal, but the state will sanction it and protect her rights to that inheritance. Whether or not they have, intend to have or are capable of having children. But two women who love each other can't get married. I do not see the reason in this.
My concern with exploitation and consent is mentioned as a caveat to my general attitude that the government is inconsistant regarding what types of sexual relationships they allow, sanction, or punish.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In particular, it seems short-sighted / hypocritical to dismiss polygamy off-hand with a casual remark while going for same-sex marriage.
It is not a matter of dismissing polygamy. It is a matter of realizing that it is a separate matter that does not affect the consideration of same sex marriage. As such, when advocating same sex marriage, there is no need to defend polygamy and the enormous difference that I pointed out is enough to demonstrate that same sex marriage will not necessarily lead to polygamy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claiming people like Jefferson, Madison, even Franklin were good Christians of the mondern Evangelical sense is far from correct.
You're right, that would be insane. To my knowledge, modern evangelical Christianity didn't exist at all until, what, forty years ago?
My main point was really that Christianity as a core philosophy and as a cultural influence can be separated from the outward organizations and traditions that represent it. While Enlightenment philosophers rightly (in my opinion) rejected a lot of the attitudes and behavior of some forms of Christianity of their era, that doesn't mean that Christianity itself was an entirely negative or oppositional influence on them.
quote:My gist is that if, for example, a woman marries a man because he is old and rich and she wants his inheritance, not only is that legal, but the state will sanction it and protect her rights to that inheritance. Whether or not they have, intend to have or are capable of having children. But two women who love each other can't get married. I do not see the reason in this.
OK. Never mind, we're talking about two different things.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Out of curiosity, how do they determine felonious situations from just casually complicated ones? Is it the question of where they live?
I can understand the motivation for removal of children in cases where daughters are being "groomed" as future "brides". Again, there we are touching on issues of informed consent - though the line gets pretty blurry.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Seems Olivet is the only one that saw what I was really doing
However, I will say one thing concerning polygamous exploitation. If all of the women in the relationship honestly believe that God wants them to have this relationship, and they were raised being taught this, then why is it wrong? I realize that the men could use this to exploit the women, however how is this different than any other form of legal exploitation?
Someone stated the burden on the state in terms of splitting up children and the like. But the fact is that the divorce rate in these types of communities and relationships is almost nil. Compare that to a staggering (Over 50%) divorce rate among monogamous couples, and you have a type of relationship that is a LOT less burden on society.
On the other hand, polygamy and underage marriage goes hand in hand. Again, their religious beliefs play the biggest part in this. Many people involved in these relationships do not believe they are doing something wrong. They believe it is a good thing that the girls are married off young. However, just because they believe that it is ok or right, doesn't MAKE it right. Am I correct?
I dont know how many of you know about this group, but go google NAMBLA, and tell me what you all think. ITs the North American Man Boy Love Association, and fights for the right of legal age men to have sexual relationships with underage boys. Turns out our new Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi supports them. Do a little research and you will find out she supported, helped fund, and attended their parade.
Can you tell me how an underage boy can have consentual sex? If a man cant have sex with an underage girl, why do these people feel it is ok for them? If society says it is not ok to have a homosexual relationship, why is it ok for them?
I dont want to come across as a gay basher or anything, because it couldn't be more far from the truth. Like I mentioned earlier, I have gay friends, a gay cousin, and it doesnt bother me. But do I think they should be allowed to get married? Nope, not really.
I know the whole "If it doesnt affect you then why should you care?" argument, and Im sorry, but the same could be said about drugs, drunk driving, sex parties, raves, and other forms of "lifestyle" choices. Does it make them healthy or right just because people think it does?
I liken this whole argument to smoking. When it first came around, it was a fad, it was cool to smoke, and everyone said there was no consequences to smoking. Then 30 or some years later we find out all the problems it can cause in childbirth, cancer, and other health risks. Now there are warning labels, public smoking is banned in a number of states, and there are a thousand programs to try and help you quit.
Does gay marriage affect me? Everyone tells me it doesnt. But then again, 25 years ago people told me second hand smoke wouldnt hurt me either.
(I hope Olivet isnt the only one that gets my post this time, hehehe)
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting us to jump through hopes for her amusement must be very entertaining. A waste of my time, however.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's funny that the banner add at the bottom of this thread has changed from "Should they be allowed to wed?" to "Is Gay Marriage Wrong?"
The picture and the link have stayed the same, but the questions are very different, to my way of thinking.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I dont know how many of you know about this group, but go google NAMBLA, and tell me what you all think. ITs the North American Man Boy Love Association, and fights for the right of legal age men to have sexual relationships with underage boys. Turns out our new Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi supports them. Do a little research and you will find out she supported, helped fund, and attended their parade.
In an attempt to deflect attention away from the Mark Foley scandal, there is criticism that Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani all marched in gay pride parades that *happened* to have NAMBLA floats. Those bastards!
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here let me make it easy for you. <Removed link. --PJ>
By the way, the one you listed wasnt the first hit on google.
As for second hand smoking not affecting you, tell that to my aunt, who got throat cancer even though she never smoked one cigarette in her entire life. Her husband smoked every day, and they made a direct link to it.
[Edit: Please don't link directly to NAMBLA's website. It's out there, people can find it if they want. --PJ]
[ January 11, 2007, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Also, we've discovered before that different people searching from different parts of the country get different google results. Just because it wasn't the first hit for you doesn't mean it wasn't for Mucus.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Ah, good. The liar is back.
I guess some things never change. Anyone that agrees with you is a normal, intelligent person, and anyone that doesnt agree with you automatically becomes a liar. Instead of commenting on what I type you make a beeline for the name calling. Yet if someone calls someone a name that ISNT in accordance to your beliefs, we becomes bigots, hypocrits, and bashers. I just dont understand it.
The fact is that both sides are exactly the same. They believe in something. We were raised in different types of households or taught that certain things were wrong and that other things were ok. The difference is that I was taught by parents, teachers, religion, and my local society that gay marriage was wrong. They never taught me to hate homosexuals, or call them names, but concerning marriage, I was taught that it is between a man and a woman. Some were brought up in a different type of environment that believed the opposite. Were you born thinking homosexual marriage was ok, or were you taught and told it was, then decided for yourself?
And Im done. This discussion can and will go on for decades, and noone will change anyone elses minds. So good day.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not care if someone is one of the most respected and intellectually honest posters on Hatrack. If I am called a liar, I say what I believe.
Intellectually honest people dont resort to name calling. They debate intellectually. That being said, I do agree with Dagonee on a lot of his viewpoints.
And just because this is only my 8th post here on the forums does not mean I have not been reading them for years.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I dont know how many of you know about this group, but go google NAMBLA, and tell me what you all think. ITs the North American Man Boy Love Association, and fights for the right of legal age men to have sexual relationships with underage boys. Turns out our new Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi supports them. Do a little research and you will find out she supported, helped fund, and attended their parade.
In an attempt to deflect attention away from the Mark Foley scandal, there is criticism that Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani all marched in gay pride parades that *happened* to have NAMBLA floats. Those bastards!
Any parade that allows NAMBLA floats is immoral, regardless of any positive thing that might otherwise have been in the parade.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The difference is that I was taught by parents, teachers, religion, and my local society that gay marriage was wrong. They never taught me to hate homosexuals, or call them names, but concerning marriage, I was taught that it is between a man and a woman. Some were brought up in a different type of environment that believed the opposite. Were you born thinking homosexual marriage was ok, or were you taught and told it was, then decided for yourself?
I think this is hyperbole. I find it hard to believe that anyone over 15 years old was taught that marriage was between a man and a woman in any kind of remotely explicit way. I'll accept that it has been implicit in society, but I don't thing the vast majority of people even considered the issue one way or the other except in the last 15 to 20 years or so. (Of course, I don't know Geraine. She might be 15 or 20 years old.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess some things never change. Anyone that agrees with you is a normal, intelligent person, and anyone that doesnt agree with you automatically becomes a liar. Instead of commenting on what I type you make a beeline for the name calling.
Actually, I was the only one who attempted to engage you in actual discussion after your lying post. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with you. As of now, I have no idea what your views are on this issue because I have zero trust in your honesty.
I did comment on what you wrote - specifically, I identified the only now-relevant attribute of your posts - that they cannot be truested as an attempt to be honest discussion. Since that is what I and most of the people in this thread are here for, it's highly relevant to point out when someone isn't attempting it.
We've had an amazing discussion in this thread, one in which someone has said they are reconsidering their beliefs and another person - a person with a deeply personal interest in this issue who weathers the indignity of foolish insults like those in your lying post with more dignity than I can even imagine possessing - spoke respectfully and passionately.
You spit on that, and then pretended you were doing us all a favor by lying to us to share your wisdom.
quote:I find it hard to believe that anyone over 15 years old was taught that marriage was between a man and a woman in any kind of remotely explicit way.
I was. It wasn't contrasted to "not two men" or "not two women," but it was explicitly taught as being between a man and a woman.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Im done. This discussion can and will go on for decades, and noone will change anyone elses minds. So good day.
I'd love for you to be done, but you're not. You're still chiming in. The only way you can prove you aren't a liar is by ceasing to discuss issues of homosexual marriage in this particular thread...something which, I suspect, would be well-received by many. By myself at the very least.
And Dagonee didn't call you a liar because he disgreed with you, he called you a liar because you lied and he knew it, because you admitted to it.
Do the math on that, smart man, and try and convince everyone that 1+1=3 and that when someone calls a liar a liar, they're calling them a liar because they disagree with them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. I was taught that homosexuality is sinful and wrong, and that marriage was between a man and a woman. I was also taught that there is a difference between personal morality what should be legislated.
Many churches didn't look upon my parent's marriage as a true scriptural marriage because they had been married before, but that did not change that they were legally married, enjoying the benefits of that status.
My parents also taught me to not accept something as Truth just because someone else said it was so, that the voice of teh spirit inside me would me to the truth, if I listened.
*shrug*
I just don't have it in me to support laws that serve no purpose I can see other than to make people different from me feel bad. I know a gay couple that has been together as long as my husband and I have. They aren't activists or anything, but when Georgia passed a law making gay Marriage Extra-Crispy Illegal (it was already illegal here, this was just a chest-beating, get-out-the-conservative-clenched-buttocks-vote) I know it hurt them.
I don't want to be part of that. I just don't.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried to keep myself from responding, but it was just too tempting.
quote:However, not ONE of them has told me they agree with gay marriage. In fact, all of them have expressed to me that they feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that they are fine with that. Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large.
The bolded statements made me ROFL.
quote:My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
quote:ITs the North American Man Boy Love Association, and fights for the right of legal age men to have sexual relationships with underage boys.
Does anyone else see the irony here? Anyone?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I am failing to see where I am a liar. Please point it out so that I can see for myself.
And as for how I honestly feel, read my first post. Yes it was tongue in cheek, but it was also honestly how I feel.
I feel gay marriage is wrong, and not just because of religious reasons.
Rakeesh, thank you for the compliment.
I am not here to bash anyone, anyones beliefs, and am truly concerned about how other people feel. I apologize for being passionate about it, and if some of you took it the wrong way, as lying or what have you, it was not my intention, and I am truly sorry.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, then I am misunderstanding you. "Tongue in cheek" and "honestly how I feel" are not generally the same thing.
This is what Olivet thought you were doing:
quote: I sort of read Geraine's post as a left-wing satire of the conservative position. I mean, I thought s/he was deliberately parodying SSM opponents by posting ridiculous straw-man arguments as fact.
Then I saw that you guys were taking it seriously... I have a history of missing the obvious, I admit, but trying to read those points as if they came from a legitimate POV made my nose bleed.
O_O
And you said (I thought) that she was right.
quote: Seems Olivet is the only one that saw what I was really doing
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: And as for how I honestly feel, read my first post. Yes it was tongue in cheek, but it was also honestly how I feel.
I feel gay marriage is wrong, and not just because of religious reasons.
So you equate two adult men or women marrying to a man or woman and an animal marrying? If that's not meant to be demeaning, then how is it to be taken? As an argument, it holds no validity with the fact that, right or wrong, an animal has no recognized right to enter into a contract with anyone. It is not recognized as a human being, whereas a gay person is.
It's almost like saying SSM will allow people to marry their toasters.
As for underage marriage, see above. An eight year old girl is not recognized by the law as being old enough to enter into a contract. This is why forms for people under eighteen require a parental signature.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Society has always revolved around rules, no matter how much you like or dislike them. Just because someone thinks they should be able to do something doesnt make it right.
Yes, you have a point. However, not all rules should be kept. See the last 300 years of American history for examples of rules that were changed or dismissed.
Or, I could ask: doesn't this mean, by your logic, that just because you think you should be able to keep gay people from marrying, you don't have the right to do so/doesn't make it right?
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large. My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
I'd like some non-biased statistics, please, that prove this statement. Because I hardly think conservatives would rush to ban gay marriage in every state if it were a small number of gays in a fringe movement.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: 2) Whether you agree with Scott's opinion or not, the fact is that the country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Yes, so? The commonly held view at the time was that slavery was okay "because the Bible said so." Does that mean we must adhere still to that belief? Or the belief that women are inferior to men? That all Ten Commandments must be kept by all citizens?
We have a Freedom of Religion in this country. Just because this country was founded on Christian morals and ethics does not mean we should legislate based upon them.
I have a very hard time trying to take what you say seriously because you call gays for marriage a "fringe" minority and that most gays are "disgusted" with them, while using NAMBLA as an argument against gay marriage (because gay men secretly want to have sex with minors.) Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The state is certainly amenable to complex rules.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
