Gay marriage vs. pulygamy

[WinterBorn]

Mainly because gay men are like straight men, they enjoy their families. And they aren't deviants little fag-hater, but you are now.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

Are we discussing legal issues concerning marriage or sin and religious beliefs?

They (Christian tenets and societal laws) should go hand in hand. But more than anything I'm (I don't know about anyone else) discussing common sense issues. Common sense dictates (regardless of the law or religious beliefs) that male parts are made for female parts. That's clear and obvious. One look at the animal kingdom (and the overwhelming manner by which male animals routinely choose female counterparts) and the issue is resolved (for anyone with common sense).

So you get to choose which religion has the authority in our laws? Interesting concept. Absolute bullshit, but always interesting to see the people who complain about gov't intrusion but want religious beliefs to be the basis for our laws.

 

[Seawytch]

Mainly because gay men are like straight men, they enjoy their families. And they aren't deviants little fag-hater, but you are now.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

Are we discussing legal issues concerning marriage or sin and religious beliefs?

They (Christian tenets and societal laws) should go hand in hand. But more than anything I'm (I don't know about anyone else) discussing common sense issues. Common sense dictates (regardless of the law or religious beliefs) that male parts are made for female parts. That's clear and obvious. One look at the animal kingdom (and the overwhelming manner by which male animals routinely choose female counterparts) and the issue is resolved (for anyone with common sense).

Civil law and religious tenants should go hand in hand? You're advocating for Sharia law?

 

[PratchettFan]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

well, what?

Not that there are enough people out there really advocating for polygamy, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult, I don't have a problem with it.

Consenting adults and harms no one - I agree.

BUT, in the past, the morms did indeed harm children and women.

Why is this in Politics?

Also agree. I have no issues with any adults who enter freely into any contract they wish. Frankly, I think the reason children and women were harmed was because the law gave them no recourse. How do you get a divorce from an illegal marriage? How do you get an equitable property settlement or deal with visitation rights?

 

[SwimExpert]

Not at all. You dismiss polygamy because it didn't work in religious societies run by old men or because it was male-centric is times that were almost exclusively male-centric already.

What is your obsession with pegging this on religion in this? You seem to be trying to blame the demonstrated negative consequences of polygamy on the religious elements of said societies. And that is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

You do raise a valid point regarding the chicken v. egg element in this. Does polygamy contribute to a male dominated culture, or does it arise in cultures that are already male dominated. But I think that's a false dilemma. Oxygen can contribute to a fire, but fanning the flames can also contribute to the fire growing out of control. The known history of polygamy indicates that when it is embraced it does contribute to even greater suppression of women's rights and equality in society.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not at all. You dismiss polygamy because it didn't work in religious societies run by old men or because it was male-centric is times that were almost exclusively male-centric already.

What is your obsession with pegging this on religion in this? You seem to be trying to blame the demonstrated negative consequences of polygamy on the religious elements of said societies. And that is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

You do raise a valid point regarding the chicken v. egg element in this. Does polygamy contribute to a male dominated culture, or does it arise in cultures that are already male dominated. But I think that's a false dilemma. Oxygen can contribute to a fire, but fanning the flames can also contribute to the fire growing out of control. The known history of polygamy indicates that when it is embraced it does contribute to even greater suppression of women's rights and equality in society.

I do so because, other than religious groups headed by a single male figure, polygamy has not been tried in the modern world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mainly because gay men are like straight men, they enjoy their families. And they aren't deviants little fag-hater, but you are now.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

 

[SwimExpert]

I do so because, other than religious groups headed by a single male figure, polygamy has not been tried in the modern world.

That's not an explanation. Polygamy has existed across history. That you want to confine the investigation only to the "modern world" and only to non religious cultures is an arbitrary set of criteria.

 

[WinterBorn]

I do so because, other than religious groups headed by a single male figure, polygamy has not been tried in the modern world.

That's not an explanation. Polygamy has existed across history. That you want to confine the investigation only to the "modern world" and only to non religious cultures is an arbitrary set of criteria.

Yes it is. But since your argument against it is mainly that it involves a loss of equality for women, then the fact that it has not been tried in a modern era of sexual equality is quite relevant. And in the modern era, the only people who have tried it have been small religious groups headed by a single male figurehead. Those groups have always had a tendency towards inequality anyway.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes it is. But since your argument against it is mainly that it involves a loss of equality for women, then the fact that it has not been tried in a modern era of sexual equality is quite relevant.

No it's not. First of all, you are making an unfounded assumption that sexual equality has never existed outside of the "modern era." Your second unfounded assumption is that we cannot understand social phenomena that do not exist here and now.

 

[hangover]

Science believes they've found the "faith gene". Those with it believe, those without it don't. Science has also found that the gay brain is formed differently.
God gene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[High_Gravity]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

Polygamy is as old as time, it should be legal. If a man wants to marry 3 wives thats his business.

 

[High_Gravity]

Polygamy is not something that much noise is made about.

But polyamory is gaining popularity. More and more people are exploring relationships with more than one person.

Once again, consenting adults and no one is harmed.

They are because managomy is not natural, its a good idea but I don't believe humans were meant to be that way.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes it is. But since your argument against it is mainly that it involves a loss of equality for women, then the fact that it has not been tried in a modern era of sexual equality is quite relevant.

No it's not. First of all, you are making an unfounded assumption that sexual equality has never existed outside of the "modern era." Your second unfounded assumption is that we cannot understand social phenomena that do not exist here and now.

Yes, sexual equality has existed outside of the modern era. Was polygamy tried or accepted in those situations?

The simple fact is, if polygamy were legal and attempted in our modern world, the chances of it being a vehicle for the exploitation and subjugation of women is slim. Modern women understand that they are equal (or they should). Therefore, they are far, far less likely to accept an inferior position or treatment.

Also, polygamy is not limited to men with multiple wives, but can also include women with multiple husbands or even a group situation with more than one man and more than one woman.

The loss of equality is only a threat if the wives accept it. In the past and in religious based polygamous settings, the law and the religion kept the women in place.

The only problem with polygamy is jealousy and harassment from those who dislike it and think it is any of their business.

 

[DriftingSand]

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

 

[WinterBorn]

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

Training? lol You mean those insane conversion therapy claims?

Why not just let people love who they love? Why is it anyone else's business who someone loves or marries, as long as it is between consenting adults and no one is harmed?

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes, sexual equality has existed outside of the modern era. Was polygamy tried or accepted in those situations?

Yes, no, maybe so. What's your point?

You have devolved into a logically absurd position. You are demanding that polygamy must be observed in a culture of gender equality before we can conclude whether polygamy effects gender equality within a culture. If polygamy were to have an adverse effect on the gender equality of the culture, then we would no longer be observing a culture of gender equality, and thus the observation you are demanding becomes impossible.

Stop, please. You are stretching your otherwise intelligence into ridiculousness. You are making pointless demands which only serve to dismiss the well established evidence and knowledge of the matter. I already explained that your chicken v. egg proposition is a false dilemma.

Even if we could reasonably conclude that polygamy is more of a product than a cause of male dominated societies, we still already know that polygamy makes the problem even worse. It reenforces propagates male dominance in society, even in cases of polyandry. The circumstances that lead to its instantiation certainly make for interesting study. But its effects on society are already understood, and do not require treatment of its origins anymore than we need to question how a forest fire was started in order to understand the effect it had on the forest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

You're begging the question by presuming homosexuality to be a malady.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, sexual equality has existed outside of the modern era. Was polygamy tried or accepted in those situations?

Yes, no, maybe so. What's your point?

You have devolved into a logically absurd position. You are demanding that polygamy must be observed in a culture of gender equality before we can conclude whether polygamy effects gender equality within a culture. If polygamy were to have an adverse effect on the gender equality of the culture, then we would no longer be observing a culture of gender equality, and thus the observation you are demanding becomes impossible.

Stop, please. You are stretching your otherwise intelligence into ridiculousness. You are making pointless demands which only serve to dismiss the well established evidence and knowledge of the matter. I already explained that your chicken v. egg proposition is a false dilemma.

Even if we could reasonably conclude that polygamy is more of a product than a cause of male dominated societies, we still already know that polygamy makes the problem even worse. It reenforces propagates male dominance in society, even in cases of polyandry. The circumstances that lead to its instantiation certainly make for interesting study. But its effects on society are already understood, and do not require treatment of its origins anymore than we need to question how a forest fire was started in order to understand the effect it had on the forest.

You talk about knowing the effects of polygamy on society with conviction, but I wonder what data or research you base that on?

 

[g5000]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

As long as no harm can be shown, then yes. That is why all the bullshit slippery slope fallacies fail when bigots attempt to draw a connection between gay marriage and pedophilia.

 

[PratchettFan]

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

It is not a malady any more than heterosexuality is a malady. You are not trained to be attracted to one sex or the other. What your are saying it absolute nonsense.