Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Religion isn't the real issue here. We aren't a theocracy (in the United States) provide one non religion based arguement on why it should not be legal and let's debate that.
If you want to insert God into it, we can say
Why isn't gay marriage legal in Saudi Arabia?
Rather, rational, logical debate. Not God doesn't like it! <--does not qualify under rational debate
If we allow gays to marry, then we should also allow consenting adults to have multiple wives if they choose. One isn't greater than the other. It's my opinion.
While someone else already covered the issues, I'll respond since I did start it. Okay. I don't think I have any problems with men having multiples wives as long as I'm not one of the multiple wives. Likewise, shouldn't women be able to have multiple husbands or wives? What difference does it make to you or me? I disapproved of it in my youth (as I did many things) but now I can't think of an argument against it other than my moral opposition. Doesn't seem like it's hurting anyone if it involves consenting adults. So, okay then--let's legalize that as well.
But I don't understand the "one isn't greater than the other," logic, or using the term "greater," really. Two consenting adults in a marriage seems more comparable to two other consenting adults in a marriage than a group of consenting adults in a marriage. No? And which would be greater? Wouldn't that depend on your perspective? From mine, a stronger relationship would involve no more than two. That's my opinion. As you have yours, you said. But why would you vote against gay marriage (or polygamy) simply because that's your opinion?
Yeah, well--show me the scientific studies which show that polygamy is hardwired into the brain before birth as homosexuality is and you might have a point.
It certainly was at one point in the deep recesses of the long ago past. Our reproductive systems today include all but unmistakable markers of our ancestors having relied upon sperm-competition as their reproductive strategy. Which is to say that if you went far enough back in time, everyone's maternal ancestors were a bunch of two-bit floosies flaunting themselves all over town, while those on the paternal side were wanton serial philanderers, every one of them. We have since switched to sperm-competition-avoidance as our reproductive strategy, but just how much of that do-it-with-everybody hardwiring remains is not entirely certain. A quick look at the headlines certainly suggests that some of it is still around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
And why only give multiple wives to men? Where are the mulitiple husbands for women? Men are the only consenting adults which should be allowed to have state sanctioned multiple sex partners?
Polygamy actually comprises both polyandry and polygyny. All women shall have their right to Brad Pitt. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
However, I believe that the laws are written in order to protect those spouses who don't wish to be one of five, which is why society requires a divorce before marrying again.
In part they are written to protect such rights, and in part to keep the courts from having to adjudicate the appropriate remedies for every marital squabble that ever comes along. That said, the concept of consensual with respect to polygamy would of necessity include the full and willing consent of all partners already unionized...
Last edited by saganista; 03-11-2008 at 08:23 AM..
I don't have a problem with consentual polygamy, but from what I've seen, it seems like more of a cult people are born into and brainwashed to believe it's ok. Like those people in southern Utah where they regularly kick boys out of town so the few men will have less competition. They dress the girls like "Little House on the Prarie" and have extremely strict rules, live in compounds, etc. It just seem so cultish and like the women are kept brainwashed and uneducated.
I understand all that. I don't want gay marriage. Marriage historically has religious connotations. I'd rather the gov't offer civil unions to any people wanting to form a partnership.
More importantly, it is a notation of blood lines. That is what it is for. It is to identify the blood lineage. Since homosexuals can not produce a bloodline between them, it is not marriage.
If equality in governmental recognition of right to assets, responsiblity, etc... is what is sought. This is a legal matter and should be approached on that level in order to achieve equality within that contract.
Marriage as it concerns the government is honestly just a legal (civil union) recognition of those responsibilities and rights between those people. A justice of the peace can marry someone, but they honestly are just validating a legal contract.
As I have said in previous threads concerning this topic. Focus more on the legal aspect of shared responsibility between two people and get those agreements up to par with that of a legal marriage recognition and you have things covered.
No matter how much people want it, homosexuals can not marry because they can not produce (in any way, shape, or form) a blood line. Calling it "marriage" would be an attempt to change the meaning of the word and thats plain idiocy.
I guess you would have it then that marriage is really granted on a provisional basis, and that such status ought of necessity to be revoked upon a failure to conceive and produce offspring. And you want to talk about idiocy.
You also seem to ignore the fact that the reproductive systems of gays and lesbians are, in the usual case, fully functional and capable of participating in the process of reproduction on exactly the same basis and frequency as straights. Neither does it seem to have dawned on you that a representative sample of those married-with-two-kids couples in the church pews next to you are comprised of a gay and a lesbian who shared a desire for both children and a career and who therefore came to certain understandings on these matters vis-a-vis the backward attitudes sometimes put forth by a society full of dimwits.
Last edited by saganista; 03-11-2008 at 09:19 AM..
More importantly, it is a notation of blood lines. That is what it is for. It is to identify the blood lineage. Since homosexuals can not produce a bloodline between them, it is not marriage.
If equality in governmental recognition of right to assets, responsiblity, etc... is what is sought. This is a legal matter and should be approached on that level in order to achieve equality within that contract.
Marriage as it concerns the government is honestly just a legal (civil union) recognition of those responsibilities and rights between those people. A justice of the peace can marry someone, but they honestly are just validating a legal contract.
As I have said in previous threads concerning this topic. Focus more on the legal aspect of shared responsibility between two people and get those agreements up to par with that of a legal marriage recognition and you have things covered.
No matter how much people want it, homosexuals can not marry because they can not produce (in any way, shape, or form) a blood line. Calling it "marriage" would be an attempt to change the meaning of the word and thats plain idiocy.
Then why are heteros allowed to marry if one is sterile, or they have no desire to reproduce? I know several married couples who either never had children (too old now) or have no desire to have children. So marriage for them is a bond between two people who love each other and support each other through life. No "blood lines" involved.
I guess you would have it then that marriage is really granted on a provisional basis, and that such status ought of necessity to be revoked upon a failure to conceive and produce offspring. And you want to talk about idiocy.
You also seem to ignore the fact that the reproductive systems of gays and lesbians are, in the usual case, fully functional and capable of participating in the process of reproduction on exactly the same basis and frequency as straights. Neither does it seem to have dawned on you that a representative sample of those married-with-two-kids couples in the church pews next to you are comprised of a gay and a lesbian who shared a desire for both children and a career and who therefore came to certain understandings on these matters vis-a-vis the backward attitudes sometimes put forth by a society full of dimwits.
You love those straw mans don't you?
Notice here what I said:
"homosexuals can not marry because they can not produce (in any way, shape, or form) a blood line"
I didn't say what you were implying, that would be your straw man there.
Also, might I suggest reading up on what a blood line is?
Sally can not beget billy with marry. Marry and Sally do not come together to produce anything. Sure, they can get a man to provide the sperm, but then it defeats the entire purpose of what a blood line is.
I think homosexuality is something people are born with. They should have every right to pursue happiness like the heterosexuals. That being said, a country with strong families is critical to the success of America. A child needs a mother and a father. 2 men or 2 women can't give that. There are many terrible heterosexual parents and many great homosexual couples who would make great parents. But you have to go with the whole. As a whole, a man and a woman as parents don't confuse a child.
I have no problem with gay marriage, just gay couples adopting children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
