Homosexuality: religous issue? moral issue? legal issue? or civil rights issue? (translation, Isaiah)

[cleatis]

Originally Posted by FreeThinkerInTex

(I chose you randomly to ask this....)
If gay marriage is passed, do you have a problem with polygamy also being legalized? I mean why not..... who cares, besides the church and the insurance companies perhaps?

I can't really say for sure. To me the idea of marriage is about commitment to the one you love. A large issue that I have with polygamy is that it isn't really about love and finding a life partner. It's more about spreading seed and not getting shot down by the dreaded "I have a headache" (cause you can always just go to the next wife). Another issue that I have with it is that it sends the message that women are possessions and bed-slats. I can't for the life of me see how being married to 50 women has anything to do with love. Anyone that enjoys a successful marriage will say that it takes mountains of hard work, endless hours of effort and relentless respect. One spouse is about all the more a person can put all that effort into. Can someone really put all the work and effort that marriage requires into several partners? Or let's put it this way: what if your spouse wanted to have relationships with a dozen other people how would you feel about it - would that be love?

At least with a gay couple there is something like love. They are at least trying to commit to one another. Of course, like any other couple their relationships will fail from time to time.

But while we're talking about polygamy: what if the roles were reversed? What if a woman wanted to marry 50 men? To be fair, would that woman share the same light of respect that a man with 50 wives would? Or would that just be promiscuity?

[cleatis]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Heres the argument.

Marriage is a religious term, and should be simply a religious ceremony. HOWEVER, The state has deemed it to be a social contract, with legal rights associated with the term.

The state can not discriminate against anyone one social, sexual, or racial group. So that is why homosexuals are fighting for their right to "marry".

My argument is, that marriage should be completely removed from the state. The state shouldn't marry anyone, or acknowledge anyones marriage through a church. The state should only give out civil unions, for everyone. Marriage is something you do at your church, and it should afford you no rights in a court of law.

That would shoot the whole thing dead in the water. The problem is, religious organizations like having a legal power, although it is prohibitied in our constitution under the idea of a seperation of church and state.

Well there are some possible problems with that as well. Here again, what about Atheists who don't want to go to a church? What about people that move here from non-Christian countries like India?

The problem with civil unions is that they don't afford couples the same rights as married couples. Which is what I think the bottom of this whole thing is. If one on a gay couple has to be in the hospital, the other may not get to see them. If one dies (without a will) the other has no legal say in the property and possessions left behind. there are many stories of this happening. I have heard of one gay couple that had been together for 30 years. One of them died and his family that had disowned him got everything that he left behind - his house, car... all of it. His partner could only have the things that he purchased himself. This is the main issue with it all is that they do everything that someone is supposed to do in a relationship, yet they aren't allowed to share the same benefits. In the case I just talked about don't you think the surviving man should have got the same benefits that a "normal" married couple would? I mean they were together for 30+ years. They put forth the same hard work and effort that anyone else had.

So I guess in short, maybe this wouldn't be so bad just so long as the legal rights of marriage would apply to anyone who wants to be together. But in all reality, marriage is also a state term no matter who does or does not like it - and it's most likely going to stay that way as it would be monumental to go back and tell all the Atheists, the Hindu's and Buddhists that their marriage no longer applies.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by cleatis

Well there are some possible problems with that as well. Here again, what about Atheists who don't want to go to a church? What about people that move here from non-Christian countries like India?

The problem with civil unions is that they don't afford couples the same rights as married couples. Which is what I think the bottom of this whole thing is. If one on a gay couple has to be in the hospital, the other may not get to see them. If one dies (without a will) the other has no legal say in the property and possessions left behind. there are many stories of this happening. I have heard of one gay couple that had been together for 30 years. One of them died and his family that had disowned him got everything that he left behind - his house, car... all of it. His partner could only have the things that he purchased himself. This is the main issue with it all is that they do everything that someone is supposed to do in a relationship, yet they aren't allowed to share the same benefits. In the case I just talked about don't you think the surviving man should have got the same benefits that a "normal" married couple would? I mean they were together for 30+ years. They put forth the same hard work and effort that anyone else had.

So I guess in short, maybe this wouldn't be so bad just so long as the legal rights of marriage would apply to anyone who wants to be together. But in all reality, marriage is also a state term no matter who does or does not like it - and it's most likely going to stay that way as it would be monumental to go back and tell all the Atheists, the Hindu's and Buddhists that their marriage no longer applies.

Thats what I'm saying.

Marriage = no legal rights, none, zilch, nada for anyone.

Civil Union = the current rights that are granted by marriage, but the word Marriage will not be attached with it.

Everyone should be able to get a civil union, gay, straight, plural marriages, whatever. As long as its between consenting adults, no questions asked.

Now, marriage would become a religious ceremony only. Churches couldn't be "forced" to marry anyone. If a interracial couple comes in, and the church doesn't want to marry them, they can't claim discrimination. However, that doesn't prevent them from finding a church that will marry them.

As long as they know that marriage, has about the same legal rights as someone who says they are baptized.

This to me, is the only way to end this argument. Then the state can remove itself from "defining marriage" as its a religious definition anyway. And the church can decide who gets married to whomever they want.

[PatsCats]

Originally Posted by cleatis

...polygamy is that it isn't really about love and finding a life partner. It's more about spreading seed and not getting shot down by the dreaded "I have a headache" (cause you can always just go to the next wife). Another issue that I have with it is that it sends the message that women are possessions and bed-slats. I can't for the life of me see how being married to 50 women has anything to do with love...What if a woman wanted to marry 50 men? To be fair, would that woman share the same light of respect that a man with 50 wives would? Or would that just be promiscuity?

I have known three polyamorous families in my life, and all of them have been one woman with two husbands. For them it has never been about "spreading seed and not getting shot down by the dreaded 'I have a headache'." It was always about a division of labor.

Now for my part, I don't know how that works! I have enough trouble managing time for just one husband!

[cleatis]

Originally Posted by PatsCats

I have known three polyamorous families in my life, and all of them have been one woman with two husbands. For them it has never been about "spreading seed and not getting shot down by the dreaded 'I have a headache'." It was always about a division of labor.

Now for my part, I don't know how that works! I have enough trouble managing time for just one husband!

Yeah, that's pretty much my thoughts also. One wife is about all I could handle.

As far as the triads that you've known... I really think that marriage is more than division of labor. And while this works for them (great if it does) I can't see it working very well on a large scale. Some polygamous marriages have consisted of dozens of wives and at that point I can't see there being any real love. The whole thing gets pretty bungled after a while if it grows so big. Say a man has 42 wives, and some of them get married to 12 or 20 men. Soon you're talking about 100 people in a marriage. That's a free love commune...

[FreeThinkerInTex]

[quote=PatsCats;11916899]I have known three polyamorous families in my life, and all of them have been one woman with two husbands. For them it has never been about "spreading seed and not getting shot down by the dreaded 'I have a headache'." It was always about a division of labor.

Wow!

[cleatis]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Thats what I'm saying.

Marriage = no legal rights, none, zilch, nada for anyone.

Civil Union = the current rights that are granted by marriage, but the word Marriage will not be attached with it.

Everyone should be able to get a civil union, gay, straight, plural marriages, whatever. As long as its between consenting adults, no questions asked.

Now, marriage would become a religious ceremony only. Churches couldn't be "forced" to marry anyone. If a interracial couple comes in, and the church doesn't want to marry them, they can't claim discrimination. However, that doesn't prevent them from finding a church that will marry them.

As long as they know that marriage, has about the same legal rights as someone who says they are baptized.

This to me, is the only way to end this argument. Then the state can remove itself from "defining marriage" as its a religious definition anyway. And the church can decide who gets married to whomever they want.

Well, sounds ok so far. I wouldn't endorse this immediately, but I will at least commend you for bringing an alternative to the table.

[PatsCats]

Originally Posted by cleatis

... I can't see it working very well on a large scale. Some polygamous marriages have consisted of dozens of wives and at that point I can't see there being any real love...

Those triads were exactly that, triads. Nothing more, not open for discussion. One woman, two husbands. Period.

Still not for me, but I don't have a problem with it, other than the juggling spouses part.

[cleatis]

Originally Posted by PatsCats

Those triads were exactly that, triads. Nothing more, not open for discussion. One woman, two husbands. Period.

Still not for me, but I don't have a problem with it, other than the juggling spouses part.

I don't doubt that they were simply a triad. But in the context of polygamy three isn't the limit - the sky is. One could be a triad successfully (although not for everyone) but polygamy entails the option for many many more. And while this is not the case with the people you are speaking of, in polygamy one could have 40 or 50 spouses and the spouses could have other spouses as well.

It isn't unheard of for polygamous marriages to have 40+ people involved. Which is what I was getting to in my reply to the polygamy case of marriage. In an event like this one where a group the size of a small town could share marriage it wouldn't be anything like marriage. Again, I wasn't saying that the people you know have a roving 50 person household, just that polygamy allows this to happen. This is quite a bit more out of hand in terms of marriage than allowing two men (or women) to be married.

I was illustrating this possibility of polygamy in regards to gay marriage as being kind of apples and oranges.

[apologist 007]

Moved