Homosexual Marriages (Again)

[pdoel]

To play the devil's advocate here: If homosexual marriage is legalized, what would prevent the same grounds on which it is legalized from being used to justify legalizing incestous marriages? How about polygamous marriages?

I don't follow the jump you've made.

Are you saying that homosexuals want to have sex/marry their own siblings? Is this something limited to the homosexual community? Or homosexuals more drawn to members of their own family?

The answer to all of those questions, quite frankly, is no.

We've had marriage for thousands and thousands of years. Yet, we still do not allow incestual marriages. It could just as easily be argued that if we are allow a man and a woman to marry, what is going to keep us from allowing a brother and a sister to marry? Seems silly, huh?

But, to expand a bit more. There are actual REASONS why incestual marriages are outlawed. Reproduction as a result of such a union tends to cause trouble for the offspring. Retardation, physical problems, etc. That is the main reason (other than the fact that it's quite creepy), that incestual relationships have been outlawed.

 

[pdoel]

I'm not interested in whether polygamous marriage is good or bad, but in whether the same arguments used to justify homosexual marriage also justify polygamous marriage.

What if they were to ban heterosexual marriages? If a group lobbied to keep it, couldn't you also argue the same about heterosexual marriages?

If we're to allow a man and a woman to marry, what's stopping us from allowing a man to marry two women? Or a woman to marry two men?

Your points can just as easily be used against heterosexual marriages.

 

[JerryL]

I'm not interested in whether polygamous marriage is good or bad, but in whether the same arguments used to justify homosexual marriage also justify polygamous marriage.

Fair enough.

Some arguemnts in favor of homosexual marriage could not be used for poligamy. The argument, for example, that homosexuals should have the same right to marry their partner that heterosexuals have would not apply because marrying several partners is not the same right.

Of course, that seems something of a line in the sand (it all depends how you word the right in question, from "marry the member of the opposite sex of their choice" to "marry the single person of their choice" to "marry whom they choose").

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wouldn't have thought that that was particularly difficult idea to understand.

And I wouldn't have thought that my question warranted condescension. At the risk of further disappointing you, I'd be curious to know if you believe that civil unions facilitate adultery.

 

[Aqualung]

I agree. However, I have no problem with the sort of civil unions which have recently become legal in Britain. I would never personally consider them marriages (and I only call heterosexual civil unions marriages in order to avoid offending people and because it is linguistic convention) because for me marriage is a sacrament performed before God. I am totally opposed to homosexual marriages if marriage is defined as I would personally prefer it to be but fine with it if marriage is used with the looser meaning (as it usually is) of some legally approved partnership. The inability on the part of some Christians to distinguish between the sacrament and the legal document is, in my opinion, quite sad and I'm not surprised that some people get up in arms about such Christians' attitudes.

James

:woohoo: Somebody was finally able to voice my opinions in a clear, concise manner, instead of the incoherent ramblings I am prone to make. :clap

 

[retrorich]

To play the devil's advocate here: If homosexual marriage is legalized, what would prevent the same grounds on which it is legalized from being used to justify legalizing incestous marriages? How about polygamous marriages?

How about apples and oranges?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How about apples and oranges?

Could you show us how the differences between same-sex relationships and polygamus relationships are relevant?

 

[retrorich]

In accordance with the churches teachings marriage is a bond between a man and a woman not two people of the same sex.

Welcome to RF, tcravs!

Because the churches teach something, doesn't mean it should control the law of the land. Although George W. Bush and his disciples are certainly pushing in that direction.

 

[pdoel]

Could you show us how the differences between same-sex relationships and polygamus relationships are relevant?

Could you show us how there are any similarities between the two, and where those similarities are relevant?

If anything, a polygamous relationship would better be equated to a person who was divorced then remarried. In the eyes of God, that would be considered a polygamous relationship, since a marriage is "till death do us part".

A monogamous relationship is a relationship between two people. Any two people, be it opposite sex, or same sex. A polygamous relationship is a relationship between multiple people. Which would obviously contain people of the same sex. But that doesn't mean the people of the same sex have a relationship with each other. A man could have a relationship with two different women. A woman could have a relationship with 5 different men.

That is a polygamous relationship.

A polygamous relationship could be had by people who are heterosexual or homosexual. So using it as an argument against homosexuality doesn't seem appropriate. If it does, then really, you could also use that argument against allowing heterosexual relationships.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Could you show us how there are any similarities between the two, and where those similarities are relevant?

Polygamy and same-sex marriage both seek to establish a family unit currently deemed illegal.

 

[Mike182]

In accordance with the churches teachings marriage is a bond between a man and a woman not two people of the same sex.

so i can get round it by having a sex-change :biglaugh:, and then after the marriage, i can change back - in fact, i don't even need to do that, i just need to fool the minister :biglaugh:

 

[pdoel]

Polygamy and same-sex marriage both seek to establish a family unit currently deemed illegal.

On the contrary. A same-sex family unit is not illegal. A same sex couple can and do adopt children, or have children by other means. There are currently millions of families within this country where the couple is a same-sex couple.

However, back to the point. Polygamy is deemed wrong, regardless of whether the couple is same sex or opposite sex. So, again, that is quite a leap to assume that by allowing same sex marriages, we'd then be forced to allow polygamous relationships.

At one time or another, many sexual activities currently being practiced by heterosexual couples were illegal. That is no longer the case, yet we still do not allow polygamous marriages.

At one time, Divorce was considered "illegal" by Churches. Today, that is not the case. Even the Catholic Church, which is probably the strictest Church today, when it comes to marriages, will allow a couple who was married before, to be marry someone else within the Church. And, it's actually easier to have a marriage annulled within the Catholic Church, than it is via the government. Funny how even the strictest of Churches will compromise their beliefs when it helps many of their followers.

Murder is illegal. Does that mean if we allow homosexual marriages, that somehow, people will find a reason to allow murder?

Just because two things are currently not allowed in this country, does not mean they are similar.

 

[JerryL]

If anything, a polygamous relationship would better be equated to a person who was divorced then remarried. In the eyes of God, that would be considered a polygamous relationship, since a marriage is "till death do us part".

Which God? The Jewesh and Muslim gods have divorce, as does the Christian god in cases of adultry. I won't bother to go through the few thousand other gods.

 

[JerryL]

On the contrary. A same-sex family unit is not illegal. A same sex couple can and do adopt children, or have children by other means. There are currently millions of families within this country where the couple is a same-sex couple.

In the US, the marraige of a homosexual couple is nigh-illegal; as is poly marriage (it used to be legal in Utah and the outstanding ones are recognized there).

However, back to the point. Polygamy is deemed wrong, regardless of whether the couple is same sex or opposite sex. So, again, that is quite a leap to assume that by allowing same sex marriages, we'd then be forced to allow polygamous relationships.

Homosexual marraigaes are deemed wrong, whether the group is monogomous or poly....

At one time or another, many sexual activities currently being practiced by heterosexual couples were illegal. That is no longer the case, yet we still do not allow polygamous marriages.

It is still the case. Though I'm not sure how comprehensive last years supreme court ruling is, I live in a state where a woman was prosecuted for performing oral sex on her husband.

 

[michel]

In the US, the marraige of a homosexual couple is nigh-illegal; as is poly marriage (it used to be legal in Utah and the outstanding ones are recognized there).

Homosexual marraigaes are deemed wrong, whether the group is monogomous or poly....

he he not for long...you'll have to eat your words one day............besides, who has ever said that they are opposed to marriages between parrots?

It is still the case. Though I'm not sure how comprehensive last years supreme court ruling is, I live in a state where a woman was prosecuted for performing oral sex on her husband.

Well, now is that state the state of despair ? - surely you must be joking..........

 

[mr.guy]

http://www.dumblaws.com

 

[JerryL]

Well, now is that state the state of despair ? - surely you must be joking..........

No, it's Florida. A man in a second-floor room videotaped (without consent) a married couple in their bedroom. The video tape became distributed. The couple sued the man (and lost, as Florida has laws primarily protecting audio recordings, not video), and the man pressed charges for oral copulation.

There was a woman in Texas in the past few months arrested for selling vibrators. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/16/MNGEA3O52I1.DTL) They sent in undercover agents to catch people selling vibrators.

"Moseley, in the midst of a five-year sentence at a state prison outside Atlanta, is doing time for committing oral sex. With his wife. " - http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/sodomy.html (that's in Georgia.

The list goes on and on. Sex laws are very numerios and (very scarily) enforced. It's why I think all laws should automatically expire. If they are good, they can be repassed / extended.

 

[pdoel]

In the US, the marraige of a homosexual couple is nigh-illegal; as is poly marriage (it used to be legal in Utah and the outstanding ones are recognized there).

I didn't say a marriage of a same-sex couple was legal. The comment I responded to said that a same sex family union was illegal. That is not the case. There are a plethora of family unit types that exist in this country. You don't need a marriage to have a family. You can have a single parent family, a same-sex parent family, you can have a family where the parents are not married. There are also families where the children don't have the same biological parents. Families with biological and adopted children, etc. etc. etc.

Homosexual marraigaes are deemed wrong, whether the group is monogomous or poly....

By whom? By you? I deem divorce wrong, regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. Does that mean we should make divorce illegal? Because one person deems something wrong, does not mean it is wrong for the general population. Who's definition of "wrong" should we go from?

It is still the case. Though I'm not sure how comprehensive last years supreme court ruling is, I live in a state where a woman was prosecuted for performing oral sex on her husband.

That is ridiculous. We have government waging war on a country, we are killing thousands of innocent people, spending billions of dollars to do so, while many of our own people are living in poverty. And a government office actually wasted our tax payers money by procesuting a woman for performing oral sex. If what you are saying is actually true, and not a "false story" simply told to try and prove a rather weak point, then I feel sorry for anyone who lives in your state. And I thank God that my state actually lives in the 21st century.

 

[James the Persian]

And I wouldn't have thought that my question warranted condescension. At the risk of further disappointing you, I'd be curious to know if you believe that civil unions facilitate adultery.

I sincerely apologise. That was a bit of a case of 'kicking the cat'. I'd been annoyed by others elsewhere and responded to you rather badly. Your question didn't warrant the last line of my response. Sorry.

Yes, I believe that civil unions facilitate adultery, for Orthodox Christians. All Orthodox Christians are fully aware of the Church's teachings on marriage and are therefore committing adultery if they do not have a Church wedding. For those who are not Orthodox and sincerely believe that a civil union is a valid marriage then I think not. I cannot expect everyone in the world to have an Orthodox wedding and who am I to judge another's sins. Adultery, surely, means wilfully pursuing a sexual relationship outside of marriage (or else we'd consider rape victims adulterers). If you believe that your union is a valid marriage, then, I fail to see how this can be adultery.

James

 

[James the Persian]

so i can get round it by having a sex-change :biglaugh:, and then after the marriage, i can change back - in fact, i don't even need to do that, i just need to fool the minister :biglaugh:

Actually, no. If you were to have a sex change you would still be a man (or woman) in the eyes of the Church regardless of your apparent gender after surgery and if you were to fool the priest into thinking you were of a sex you were not the marriage would be invalid. The loop holes you see simply do not exist.

James