If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[Real Sorceror]

What gets me is these people who are against polygamy - but they are fine with people sleeping around without bothering to get to know the person.

An excellant point.

 

[darkpenguin]

*What gets me is these people who are against polygamy - but they are fine with people sleeping around without bothering to get to know the person*

it's the same thing!

 

[Bishka]

it's the same thing!

No, actually it's not.

Have you ever talked with a polygamist about their sexual life?

Have you even done any real research into polygamy?

NOT ABOUT SEX.

 

[Jaymes]

*What gets me is these people who are against polygamy - but they are fine with people sleeping around without bothering to get to know the person*

it's the same thing!

:biglaugh:

Do you actually know anyone in a long-lasting polyamorous relationship? Because I do, and I can tell you the three of them would be very upset if one of them randomly slept around with someone they didn't know.

 

[lilithu]

*What gets me is these people who are against polygamy - but they are fine with people sleeping around without bothering to get to know the person*

it's the same thing!

How so?

 

[Bishka]

How so?

That's what I was wondering.



:giraffe:

 

[Real Sorceror]

*What gets me is these people who are against polygamy - but they are fine with people sleeping around without bothering to get to know the person*

it's the same thing!

Ah DP, you are quickly becoming my favorite ignoramuse.

 

[mostly harmless]

How so?

<scratches head>


I'm wondering too....

 

[nutshell]

Do polygamist families not matter? Do incestuous families not matter? Again, you prove nutshell's pont time and again.



Try again. The studies and statements by such organizations are phrased very carefully and recognize that the reason that homosexuality is not in some ways "deviant" is because society is coming to accept it more. That doesn't make it either moral or immoral in itself; medicine is not concerned with morality. If you insist, however:
http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.htm

That's because lots of women are, no offense, really emotional and not very intelligent. The fact that a small minority of women are ok with being passed around on a weekly basis like meat does not make it right.

Responding to the part I bolded. I must note that in my OP I was not attempting to make a point. I was simply inquiring into the issue. I am trying to read all these posts and look at this from a neutral point of view.

 

[HopefulNikki]

I don't care about Nutshell's point, I'm not agruing against it, I'm arguing FOR same gender couples having equal legal marriage rights.

Then maybe you should revisit the OP, because it's not directly about the moral legitimacy of homosexuality. It's about whether condoning homosexuality leads to the condoning of other behaviors such as polygamy, incest, etc.

Did you miss the CATHOLIC in the title? Of course they are going to against gays. Surely you can find something less biased than a religious website.

LOL...Maize, please explain to the Catholic members of RF why they can't be unbiased scientists or form objective scientific conclusions. So much for "tolerance"...

That doesn't mean we can tell another consenting adult who and how to love when it comes to consenting adults. Again, this is a problem within the heterosexual community, stop trying to blame and hurt us for it.

Whoa, whoa, hold your horses...who said anything about love? Obviously it's impossible to stop someone from loving another person...the question is whether it is reasonable or necesary to legally recognize that love.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Responding to the part I bolded. I must note that in my OP I was not attempting to make a point. I was simply inquiring into the issue. I am trying to read all these posts and look at this from a neutral point of view.

Well, I certianly respect that...I thought when you said, "That seems like a logical progression", you were asserting the positive position. My mistake.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Sorry Inky! I had been posting a bunch on the thread and forgot to respond to this point.

If we lived a mere hundred years ago, a blink in history, the question would be "What is marriage, if the races of the people involved are irrelevant, the wishes of the parents, the leadership of the husband over his wife, whether or not they have children?" Modern marriage, which is assumed to be built on mutual affection (as opposed to genuinely "traditional" marriage which is essentially a negotiation for business and social status purposes), can survive quite well with fewer limits, as history has proven, and really it doesn't make sense to keep restrictions for the sake of being able to say you have restictions. My personal definition of an ideal marriage for modern society is something like "the public declaration of a bond of love between individuals who plan to support and care for each other in their daily lives".

Considering there's nothing really remarkable about the idea of gay marriage compared to other changes to the insitution over the past century or two, why would gay marriage be more likely to cause a "slippery slope" than interracial marriage, or gender-equal marriage, or marriage without children or without the consent of parents? Those encountered the exact same protests in their day, including the "slippery slope" argument, that gay marriage recieves today.

I do see your point here, and yes, 100 years ago interracial marriage was taboo, and it has become acceptable now. My point, however, is when is the line going to be drawn? We make one change here, one change there, and soon marriage is completely different than it was originally (although maybe you don't perceive this as a bad thing.) To me, it seems foundational to marriage that it be between a man and a woman; humans are generally monogamous creatures who procreate heterosexually, it only seems reasonable to define marriage within that context. I realize that others feel differently, but I get the feeling we're never going to convince each other.

 

[lilithu]

I do see your point here, and yes, 100 years ago interracial marriage was taboo, and it has become acceptable now.

A hundred years ago??! :areyoucra

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]I know older couples in my church who had to move from one state to another because some states would not allow them to get married, and they are not over 100 years old.

[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The first time that an anti-miscegenation law was overturned in this country was not until 1948 (by the California Supreme Court). At that time, 90% of Americans opposed inter-racial marriages.

It wasn't until 1967 that SCOTUS struck down all [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S., making inter-racial marriage legal. At that time, 72% of Americans still [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]opposed inter-racial marriages.

And it wasn't until 1991 that the percentage of Americans who oppose [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]inter-racial marriages became less that the percentage who condone it.

A hundred years ago my arse.
[/FONT]
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm)

My point, however, is when is the line going to be drawn? We make one change here, one change there, and soon marriage is completely different than it was originally (although maybe you don't perceive this as a bad thing.) To me, it seems foundational to marriage that it be between a man and a woman; humans are generally monogamous creatures who procreate heterosexually, it only seems reasonable to define marriage within that context. I realize that others feel differently, but I get the feeling we're never going to convince each other.

We probably won't convince each other. The thing is, we don't have to. It doesn't take 100% consensus to make something legal in this country. As the data above shows, it doesn't even take a majority consensus. And with close to half of Americans currently favoring legalized same-sex unions, no offense but I really don't have to care whether you're convinced or not. Gay marriage (or its legal equivalent) will be legal in this country in the near future.

And then 40 years from now, people will be saying that it was a hundred years ago when we had such backwards ideas.

 

[HopefulNikki]

A hundred years ago??! :areyoucra

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]I know older couples in my church who had to move from one state to another because some states would not allow them to get married, and they are not over 100 years old.

[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The first time that an anti-miscegenation law was overturned in this country was not until 1948 (by the California Supreme Court). At that time, 90% of Americans opposed inter-racial marriages.

It wasn't until 1967 that SCOTUS struck down all [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S., making inter-racial marriage legal. At that time, 72% of Americans still [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]opposed inter-racial marriages.

And it wasn't until 1991 that the percentage of Americans who oppose [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]inter-racial marriages became less that the percentage who condone it.

A hundred years ago my arse.
[/FONT]

Ok, let's pretend that the laws were changed YESTERDAY....so what? That doesn't mean we should or have reason to make more changes. [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][/FONT]
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm)

We probably won't convince each other. The thing is, we don't have to. It doesn't take 100% consensus to make something legal in this country. As the data above shows, it doesn't even take a majority consensus. And with close to half of Americans currently favoring legalized same-sex unions, no offense but I really don't have to care whether you're convinced or not. Gay marriage (or its legal equivalent) will be legal in this country in the near future.

Only time will tell, I suppose

And then 40 years from now, people will be saying that it was a hundred years ago when we had such backwards ideas

And 1,000 years from now, people will be saying America fell because it had gone to such extremes in eliminating all boundaries and morals...

 

[lilithu]

Ok, let's pretend that the laws were changed YESTERDAY....so what? That doesn't mean we should or have reason to make more changes.

Let's get something straight here. Do you think it was a mistake to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws? Because the point that you seem to be ignoring is that people were against inter-racial marriages because they thought that it would destroy the moral fabric of America, and that turned out not to be true. Those laws are now viewed as unfounded infringements against civil liberties. So YES, that DOES mean we have reason to make more changes.

And 1,000 years from now, people will be saying America fell because it had gone to such extremes in eliminating all boundaries and morals...

Oh right, because Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Germany, Portugal, Israel, and a bunch of other countries are all clearly such fallen dens of iniquity.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Let's get something straight here. Do you think it was a mistake to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws? Because the point that you seem to be ignoring is that people were against inter-racial marriages because they thought that it would destroy the moral fabric of America, and that turned out not to be true. Those laws are now viewed as unfounded infringements against civil liberties. So YES, that DOES mean we have reason to make more changes.

I'm sorry, that makes zero sense. The fact that we make one change does not mean we should automatically make more changes. Each change must be logically, reasonably grounded in order to take effect. Since all the arguments heard thus far for homosexual marriage are just as easily applied to polygamy, incest, etc, we have no reason to recognize gay marraige before any other minority romantic union...many of which I think the vast majority of humanity agrees are horrid.

Oh right, because Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Germany, Portugal, Israel, and a bunch of other countries are all clearly such fallen dens of iniquity.

And all of the countries that don't allow gay marraige ARE fallen dens of iniquity??

 

[lilithu]

I'm sorry, that makes zero sense. The fact that we make one change does not mean we should automatically make more changes.

It does if the change is similar/logically consistent.

Each change must be logically, reasonably grounded in order to take effect. Since all the arguments heard thus far for homosexual marriage are just as easily applied to polygamy, incest, etc,

No, they are not. Have you actually read the arguments in this thread?

we have no reason to recognize gay marraige before any other minority romantic union...many of which I think the vast majority of humanity agrees are horrid.

It is frickin bizzare that you would keep using this majority/minority language. There was a time when the white majority thought the black minority should be slaves. Did that make it right?

And all of the countries that don't allow gay marraige ARE fallen dens of iniquity??

Who said that? You claimed that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to the fall of America. I listed a bunch of countries where same-sex marriage is already legal as a counter example to your claim.

 

[HopefulNikki]

It does if the change is similar/logically consistent.

Sadly, the change is not logically consistent from inter-racial marraige to gay marriage, and you've provided no argument that demonstrates it as such.

No, they are not. Have you actually read the arguments in this thread?

LOL...have you actually read MY arguments in this thread? I've been responding to everything that people have said to me in this thread, don't cloud the issue by pretending like I'm dodging.

It is frickin bizzare that you would keep using this majority/minority language. There was a time when the white majority thought the black minority should be slaves. Did that make it right?

So then I guess your whole, "I don't care what you think because the majority of Americans agree with me" argument kinda falls apart then, doesn't it? But once again, this thread isn't about whether gay marriage is "right", but whether it will lead to the condoning of other things like polygamy, incest, etc, which has thus far pretty much been shown to be true.

Who said that? You claimed that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to the fall of America. I listed a bunch of countries where same-sex marriage is already legal as a counter example to your claim.

And you act as though the fact that such countries haven't instantly disintegrated proves that gay marriage is ok...that's incredibly short-sighted. It could take centuries to ascertain the over-arching effect that gay marriage has on individual countries.

 

[lilithu]

Sadly, the change is not logically consistent from inter-racial marraige to gay marriage, and you've provided no argument that demonstrates it as such.

As I have stated and you ignored, in this country rights/liberties are assumed unless there is reason to take them away. There was no proven reason to take away the rights of people to marry inter-racially. Therefore, that right was eventually recognized. There is no proven reason to take away the rights of people to marry the same gender. Therefore, that right should and will be recognized. It is not a matter of the majority granting a right to a minority. You've got that a**-backwards. People have inalienable rights unless there is reason to take them away. The onus is on you to prove that this right should not be recognized.

LOL...have you actually read MY arguments in this thread? I've been responding to everything that people have said to me in this thread, don't cloud the issue by pretending like I'm dodging.

Let me remind you of what you wrote to which I was directly responding, since you seem to have trouble remembering your own words.

"Since all the arguments heard thus far for homosexual marriage are just as easily applied to polygamy, incest, etc,"

It is irrelevant what your arguments are. All I have to do is show that there are people who disagree with you in this thread for your statement to be false.

So then I guess your whole, "I don't care what you think because the majority of Americans agree with me" argument kinda falls apart then, doesn't it?

Umm, NO. I did not say that the majority of Americans agree with me. I said that it doesn't even take a majority of Americans to agree in order to get a law changed. This is entirely consistent with what I've been arguing all along. Rights are not granted by the majority.

But once again, this thread isn't about whether gay marriage is "right", but whether it will lead to the condoning of other things like polygamy, incest, etc, which has thus far pretty much been shown to be true.

Shown by you to yourself. What an impressive feat.

And you act as though the fact that such countries haven't instantly disintegrated proves that gay marriage is ok...that's incredibly short-sighted. It could take centuries to ascertain the over-arching effect that gay marriage has on individual countries.

So you're arguing that our country will fall apart if we legalize gay-marriage but we'll have to wait centuries for your proof. And we should take your word on this why??

 

[Tigress]

But once again, this thread isn't about whether gay marriage is "right", but whether it will lead to the condoning of other things like polygamy, incest, etc, which has thus far pretty much been shown to be true.

Has it been? Have Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Germany, Portugal, Israel, and a bunch of other countries all been lead to condone, or at least to consider condoning, polygamy and incest?

And you act as though the fact that such countries haven't instantly disintegrated proves that gay marriage is ok...that's incredibly short-sighted. It could take centuries to ascertain the over-arching effect that gay marriage has on individual countries.

You're right, it could take centuries to ascertain any effects of same-sex marriage as they pertain to society as a whole, I agree. However, sitting around and worrying about all the 'could be' situations will not get us anywhere. The best way to find out if there are, or will be any effects is to allow it to happen, which is what we in Canada, etc., have done.