A question?

[HerbieHeadley]

If we have same sex marriage and do not honor traditional marriage (just man and woman) in this country, why do we stop at two people?
Why not three people? Why not four or five? Heck, why not have whole communities marry each other and be one big family. That way instead of just a village of good and bad neighbors, we can all be financially and emotionally responsible for each other.

If you limit the civil rights cry from the homosexuals to just unions between two people, are we not discriminating against those who prefer more than just one partner? Like the Mormons....

Where is the cut off?

 

[Kharak]

To believe that clergy in Europe once supported polygamy to repopulate Europe and support war widows . . .

There is no reason that polygamy is wrong from a legal point of view (aside from being, at the moment, illegal of course). That it does not infringe upon the rights of others is undisputed, but rather the difficulties it may or may not pose to certain marriage benefits.

From a moral point of view? Well, who cares!? Laws were not made to enforce state sanctioned morality, but to ensure restrictions and liberties. This whole neo-conservative nonsense on enforcing morality on a population really isn't all that conservative. It's more red tape for normal people who buy porn, smoke home grown weed and digest junk food and not end up hurting anyone else. Minus, of course, laws on economic well being (because a homeless person doesn't contribute that much to the material economy).

It's the individual's job to decide morality, not the government. That certain torts happen to be illegal is based on sound logic, reasoning and proven effects . . . Or, such is in the case of particular taboo things, illegal because the dissenting minority was shot while attempting to justify their case.

 

[Freodin]

I´d say that problems with "more than two persons" kinds of marriages are more of a technical kind than moral. But if these problems are recognized and legally adressed, I see no problems with such an institution.

 

[Skaloop]

If we have same sex marriage and do not honor traditional marriage (just man and woman) in this country, why do we stop at two people?
Why not three people? Why not four or five? Heck, why not have whole communities marry each other and be one big family. That way instead of just a village of good and bad neighbors, we can all be financially and emotionally responsible for each other.

If you limit the civil rights cry from the homosexuals to just unions between two people, are we not discriminating against those who prefer more than just one partner? Like the Mormons....

Where is the cut off?

Since there is heterosexual marriage, why do we stop at two people? Where is the cutoff?

The issue you raise has nothing to do with gay marriage. So put your slippery slope aside. In twenty years, you will look quite the fool.

 

[Axioma]

Oh, I'd say we needn't wait twenty years...

 

[Mystman]

If we have interracial marriage and do not honor traditional marriage (just a white man and a white woman) in this country, why do we stop at two people?
Why not three people? Why not four or five? Heck, why not have whole communities marry each other and be one big family. That way instead of just a village of good and bad neighbors, we can all be financially and emotionally responsible for each other.

If you limit the civil rights cry from the interracials to just unions between two people, are we not discriminating against those who prefer more than just one partner? Like the Mormons....

Where is the cut off?

---

Anyway, the answer would be: there's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy. The problem comes in societies where the man's opinion is valued more than the woman's (the man is the ruler of the household, that kind of thing). A man might decide "yeah, I'd like another 18 year old as a wife!", and the woman wouldn't really like the idea, but she would go along because she's conditioned to view her opinion as inferior.

In a society where men and women are truly treated as equals, there's nothing wrong with polygamy. Most people still would want a normal marriage, but for the few who don't: go ahead and marry 3 guys and 5 women.

 

[Silent Bob]

If we have same sex marriage and do not honor traditional marriage (just man and woman) in this country, why do we stop at two people?

With the global divorce rate going up all the time I'd say you don't need same sex marriage to "not honor traditional marriage." But if gays and lesbians get married you get more marriages and if they get fewer divorces then they can "boost" your statistics. Win, win!

Why not three people? Why not four or five? Heck, why not have whole communities marry each other and be one big family. That way instead of just a village of good and bad neighbors, we can all be financially and emotionally responsible for each other.

Why not?

If you limit the civil rights cry from the homosexuals to just unions between two people, are we not discriminating against those who prefer more than just one partner? Like the Mormons....

So the argument is we should oppress minorities so that other minorities don't start demanding rights? In that case my friend the can has been open for far longer. Good luck with bringing back slavery and abolishing the female vote.

Where is the cut off?

13. 13 people (and/or animals and/or trees and/or objects) maximum. That way you have a football (soccer) team and two substitutions.

In a few years we'll have people who will want to marry entire churches... no wait that happened.

 

[FedererFan]

Since there is heterosexual marriage, why do we stop at two people? Where is the cutoff?

The issue you raise has nothing to do with gay marriage. So put your slippery slope aside. In twenty years, you will look quite the fool.

Exactly. We don't allow heterosexual polygamous marriage right now. What's the difference? We can worry about this when polygamist groups start voicing reasonable legal arguments to change the laws. And when that happens, your side can come up with a counter-legal argument. The arguments need to be legal, not religious or visceral. Until that happens this argument fails miserably.

 

[praying]

I´d say that problems with "more than two persons" kinds of marriages are more of a technical kind than moral. But if these problems are recognized and legally adressed, I see no problems with such an institution.

^^This, though that would not be my cup of tea.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If we have same sex marriage and do not honor traditional marriage (just man and woman) in this country, why do we stop at two people?
Why not three people? Why not four or five? Heck, why not have whole communities marry each other and be one big family. That way instead of just a village of good and bad neighbors, we can all be financially and emotionally responsible for each other.

If you limit the civil rights cry from the homosexuals to just unions between two people, are we not discriminating against those who prefer more than just one partner? Like the Mormons....

Where is the cut off?

That's a straw-man argument...sorry, no dice.

You can stretch any argument to the extreme like that.

 

[Kid Fish]

That's a straw-man argument...sorry, no dice.

You can stretch any argument to the extreme like that.

It's not straw man, it's logical progression. Polygamy and incest will both be fought for in time. Look how we have evolved. Let us all pat ourselves on the back, huh kids?

I guess we could cross all barriers at once if we can just find a father and his two sons who want to share the marriage bed. Someone should advertise for it so we can get everything cleared up ASAP.

Yup, that would cover all possible joyous couplings involving consenting human adults. And that creepy guy in Germany who fathered seven kids with his daughter, maybe his case could be grandfathered into the law and he could just marry her. Sweet.

 

[FedererFan]

It's not straw man, it's logical progression. Polygamy and incest will both be fought for in time. Look how we have evolved. Let us all pat ourselves on the back, huh kids?

I guess we could cross all barriers at once if we can just find a father and his two sons who want to share the marriage bed. Someone should advertise for it so we can get everything cleared up ASAP.

Yup, that would cover all possible joyous couplings involving consenting human adults. And that creepy guy in Germany who fathered seven kids with his daughter, maybe his case could be grandfathered into the law and he could just marry her. Sweet.

If we thought like this with regard to all other policy issues, we would never progress. Issues need to be looked at individually and on their own merits. Slipper slope arguments are rarely valid.

 

[tulc]

It's not straw man, it's logical progression.

How do you figure? How does polygamy tie into gay marriage?
tulc(wonders if you condemn ancient Israel for having polygamy also?)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's not straw man, it's logical progression. Polygamy and incest will both be fought for in time. Look how we have evolved. Let us all pat ourselves on the back, huh kids?

I guess we could cross all barriers at once if we can just find a father and his two sons who want to share the marriage bed. Someone should advertise for it so we can get everything cleared up ASAP.

Yup, that would cover all possible joyous couplings involving consenting human adults. And that creepy guy in Germany who fathered seven kids with his daughter, maybe his case could be grandfathered into the law and he could just marry her. Sweet.

It's your idea of logical progression and nothing more than a cheap attempt to demonize people with beliefs other than your own. If we made arguments to that effect against Christians, you guys would flip out...in fact you guys have in the past.

Tell me if this argument is fair then (If you presented the argument you just did, you should have no problem with it)

I don't want the ten commandments in front of court house or "in God we trust" on our money...if we allow that, what's to stop other religions from having the same?

I don't want David Koresh on my money or excerpts of his cult writings in front of the court house...


According to your logic, this argument is okay right?

 

[Kid Fish]

I wonder if some of you are as clueless as you appear, of if you simply wish to dissemble.

Quite simple- once marriage goes beyond natural, all bets are off. You really don't get that? There can be no line in the sand with regard to any consenting adults, once the union of two men or two women is seen as normal. There are no longer any absolutes.

You can try all day to make the opposing argument but you can't with a straight face(so to speak).

Let us at least establish the fact that there is some kind of miscue in the mind of a gay person. Can we at least agree on that? No, I'm sure we can't because it's too sensitive a subject to discuss. Man and woman were created as a set and the conjoining of the two perpetuates the species. All else is abnormal, and you can scream that it isn't, but it's like a person with no legs saying they are not in some way abnormal. Logic and pragmatism, they never fail impart truth into any argument.

 

[FedererFan]

I wonder if some of you are as clueless as you appear, of if you simply wish to dissemble.

Quite simple- once marriage goes beyond natural, all bets are off. You really don't get that? There can be no line in the sand with regard to any consenting adults, once the union of two men or two women is seen as normal. There are no longer any absolutes.

You can try all day to make the opposing argument but you can't with a straight face(so to speak).

Let us at least establish the fact that there is some kind of miscue in the mind of a gay person. Can we at least agree on that? No, I'm sure we can't because it's too sensitive a subject to discuss. Man and woman were created as a set and the conjoining of the two perpetuates the species. All else is abnormal, and you can scream that it isn't, but it's like a person with no legs saying they are not in some way abnormal. Logic and pragmatism, they never fail impart truth into any argument.

I like how you didn't respond at all to miniverchivi's analogy. I think it's very on point.

 

[Hooksta]

It's not straw man, it's logical progression. Polygamy and incest will both be fought for in time. Look how we have evolved. Let us all pat ourselves on the back, huh kids?

I'm not sure about the "logical" progression you speak of, but wasn't incest and polygamy in the Old Testament?

Abraham marries sister Sarah (incest) and I believe Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all practiced polygamy. Weren't these some of God's "chosen" people?

 

[The Nihilist]

I wonder if some of you are as clueless as you appear, of if you simply wish to dissemble.

Quite simple- once marriage goes beyond natural, all bets are off.

So what? Incest is gross, but what difference does it make? You realize no one is going to force you to marry your sister, right?

 

[tulc]

I wonder if some of you are as clueless as you appear, of if you simply wish to dissemble.

uhmmm you do realize dismissing isn't the same as answering, right? So instead of answering the questions people asked you, you merely assign a motive to our question and then dismiss us.

Quite simple- once marriage goes beyond natural, all bets are off. You really don't get that? There can be no line in the sand with regard to any consenting adults, once the union of two men or two women is seen as normal. There are no longer any absolutes.

Well apart from the whole "Who decides your view of what's "normal" between two consenting adults is the correct one?" The Bible (in the Old Testament anyway) had several Laws about multiple wives and yet you see polygamy as equivalent to gay marriage. So I ask: do you see ancient Israel as evil? And if not, why not?

You can try all day to make the opposing argument but you can't with a straight face(so to speak).

My face is straight. (and so am I)

Let us at least establish the fact that there is some kind of miscue in the mind of a gay person. Can we at least agree on that? No, I'm sure we can't because it's too sensitive a subject to discuss.

Or it's possible you're wrong, right? Or is you're argument anyone who disagrees with you automatically wrong?

Man and woman were created as a set and the conjoining of the two perpetuates the species. All else is abnormal, and you can scream that it isn't, but it's like a person with no legs saying they are not in some way abnormal. Logic and pragmatism, they never fail impart truth into any argument.

So you get to decide who's normal or not?
tulc(finds that idea a little unsettling)

 

[Kid Fish]

So you get to decide who's normal or not?
tulc(finds that idea a little unsettling)

Actually normal physiology is what it is. It's not a matter of opinion. Biology 101 explains this stuff. It's really quite simple to understand the whole sperm/egg= offspring deal. You know, the way we are made to behave- unless you are abnormal.

There are all sorts of abnormalities within human beings, and to make the contention that there are not, is so silly as to be juvenile in thought. But that's okay, in the same way that there are glitches in sexuality causing a small minority to be gay, there are glitches in the mind which do not allow for logic when emotion is prevalent in the mind.

Additionally, leading discussion with how one feels, allows one to stand on the easy side of the discourse because then others might see one as being "open-minded" and "caring", and then idiots like me can be seen as uncaring, ignorant homophobes(< phony word, btw).