A question?

[ThatRobGuy]

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

Thanks for the props!

What he's doing is another case of the text book Christian double standard. They seem to think that their ideals are worth judging by merit on an individual basis, but all non-biblical ideas, good or bad, always end up being lumped together and cast aside as if they weren't even worth evalutating...

"It doesn't say it in the new testament so that means that it will end in drug addiction, anarchy, and incest!"



I'd like to make a distinction though...Not all Christians are this way, I realize that most of you here are progressive and open minded...but there are quite a few who are guilty of this...I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Nathan45]

What kid_fish is saying is that the arguments that are used in support of Gay marriage can also be used in support of Polygamy (or incest for that matter). So why legalize gay marriage and not polygamy?

I think polygamy should probably be legal however there are arguments against it that don't really apply to gay marriage:

The first is: for obvious reasons one man having multiple wives is going to be more common than one woman having multiple husbands. So that means that if polygamy becomes a lot of men are going to be left out, while other (rich, important) men hoard all of the wives. That could lead to social problems if polygamy is practiced on a wide scale... Groups that practice polygamy tend to have these kinds of problems.

The other question is how would a polygamous marriage work with tax law, etc? could you do a joint tax return with three people? Could you claim a dozen people as dependents? polygamy makes for some odd legal problems that homosexual marriage doesn't, so it would be interesting to see how the law would be crafted.

as for incest, it's well established that children of incestuous relationships are more likely to have genetic problems. Other than the "ick" factor, that's why it's been illegal in the past. People could argue that the couple could be childless, except nobody argues that because there's no real push to make incest legal.... Hardly anyone actually wants to get married to close relatives... and even if they do i don't see why they need a contract from the government to screw and live with their sister... since if they're relatives they're can already be next of kin, they already have hospital visitation rights, etc etc etc. It's really a non-issue.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

...so marriage/sex serves no other purpose than conception and therefore men who are sterile and women who are infertile should never have sex or get married.

Makes sense...

...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.

Ahh, that explains the religious experience and why some people choose their religious beliefs over reality even when scientific evidence proves otherwise.

Another mystery solved...

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).

Homophobe isn't a real word, I trust you on that one...

Even though Webster's says this...
Main Entry: ho·mo·phobe http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?homoph02.wav=homophobe'Pronunciation: \-&#716;f&#333;b\ Function: noun Date: 1971 : a person characterized by homophobia

...they've probably just been mistaken for the last quarter of a century.

So even though it appears that the people who show unconditional love and acceptance are the caring ones, it turns out that the people that really care are the ones who don't accept them, think they're an abomination to God, and spit in the face of 20 years of medical science.

Got it

Kid, on behalf of everyone in this thread, I'd like to thank you for your inspirational posts and for taking time out of your busy day to educate us.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What kid_fish is saying is that the arguments that are used in support of Gay marriage can also be used in support of Polygamy (or incest for that matter). So why legalize gay marriage and not polygamy?

It all goes back to the slippery slope assumption...which doesn't hold up.

Unless you can predict the future, there's no way you can draw these types of conclusion from education information.

 

[Nathan45]

It all goes back to the slippery slope assumption...which doesn't hold up.

he's not talking about slippery slope, it's called reductio ad absurdum and it's a valid argument.

if you hold that homosexuals have the right to marry because the state should not restrict sexual relationships of consenting adults, the same argument could be used to justify polygamy and incest. So by bringing up polygamy and incest he's attempting to invalidate the premise that the state should not restrict sexual relationships of consenting adults.

it's perfectly reasonable to ask someone who supports homosexual marriage but doesn't support polygamy why they support one and not the other.

 

[gnomon]

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.

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).

How funny that you mention logic and pragmatism and follow with a post stating only the barest of information regarding human physiology (completely ignoring the far more complex physiology regarding human sexual development) and then go on to state that homosexuality is just a glitch in development just as a mental glitch allows people to place emotion over logic.

Which leads us to just as easily assert that their is apparently a mental glitch which allows us to state that people hold a delusion, such as religious faith, over logic.

You'll have to do better than that because there is nothing either pragmatic or logical about either of your posts.

Traditional Catholic and Christian theology holds that while there are developmental aberrations that all of humanity is beholden to the laws of God. Also, traditionally, that all human beings made in God's image and following Adam and Eve are either male or female. Observation of the natural world tells us that not all human beings are born in that manner.

You can begin to speak about logic and pragmatism once the Church has accepted that fact and begun to account for them within their theology. As of now the Church has done no such thing. The issue of intersex and it's revealing that human sexual dimorphism is only a biological probability and not a constant is part of the debate that must be addressed, by both sides of the issue of marriage equality, if they wish to consider themselves accounting for all available factors.

The OP is a strawman.

The state recognizes two individuals, be it male or female in most states, as married for financial reasons. The state by law cannot recognize a religious definition of marriage. Whether or not the two people in that marriage produce offspring is irrelevant to the status of their marriage. Whether or not those two individuals hold a polyamorous relationship, excepting in any states that still hold adultery as a criminal act, is irrelevant to the status of the marriage. Whether or not they adopt is irrelevant to the status of their marriage. Whether or not they have sex at all is irrelevant to the status of their marriage.

State recognition is a contractual recognition of property between two individuals and the equitable division of that property between them and their dependents.

To change that recognition from simple male/female to include male/male or female/female requires no major philosophical shifts. Considering that individuals who are considered legally male based upon chromosomal designation but who appeared and were raised female from birth are not taken into account primarily by those who wish to institute a sole religious definition upon marriage only shows that not only have we not named all the animals but they have not even begun.

Don't get me started on the traditional aspect of this debate. The United States is composed of the greatest diversity of cultures on this planet and perhaps history. A contentious point but still valid in showing that there are many cultural views of marriage in this nation including age of consent and the role of the genders that must be included within any definition of "traditional" marriage.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

*shrugs* I have no issue with polygamy as long as children are not being exploited and its done between consensual adults who are not abused. And I agree with the others, this "slippery slope" business with gay marriage has grown tired. Years ago interracial marriage was outlawed (and I'd be without a second cousin and two beautiful in-laws were it still outlawed). The divorce rates are high already and thats with traditional marriage being the norm. Look at Canada and other countries which allow homosexual marriage. They are doing pretty darn well and have not fallen apart yet. You have no need to fear.

 

[tulc]

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.

hmmmm do you believe physiology=morality? Because otherwise I'm not seeing what your point is.

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.

Could you show where I said there were no abnormalities among humans? I thought my point would be better described as "Just because you don't like it doesn't actually make it abnormal."

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).

hmmm who was talking about feelings?
tulc(wonders if you were going to address the rest of my post?)

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Does it infringe on my rights? No.
Does it infringe on the rights of other sentient beings? No.
Are non-consenting individuals involved? No.
Then there is no justification for criminalisation.

The government is there to deter those who would otherwise infringe on the rights of other individuals in society. If no-one is harmed against their will by polygamy, there is no justification for its criminalisation.

The line is at the point where it infringes on an individual's rights and choices. What possible justification could a government have for controlling a person's life when they're not hurting anyone else?

I mean, really, do I care? If the person next door has three spouses, and they each have more themselves, why does it matter? It doesn't affect our rights, whereas the control of our right to protest or our right to a fair trial does. There are more important things to worry about than what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

 

[Beanieboy]

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?

If we allow one man and one woman, why not a brother and a sister?
Where is the cut off?

If we look to the bible, the was One Man, and One Woman.
They children.

Now the only way to have more people is incest, so, if "one man and one woman" was God's plan, then incest must also be God's plan.

However, if one simply uses logic, the only real issue with the brother/sister thing is one of DNA and possibility of deformation or health issues.

You condemn Mormons. Do you condemn Lamech? Abraham? Jacob? Solomon? David? Not only did they have wives, they ALSO had concubines.

So, why isn't it allowed today? It is.
In Islamic countries, men are allowed up to 4 wives.
Why is it not allowed here?

Go ask your wife if she would be ok if you had a second wife that you slept with. When she says that you are going to sleep on the couch, then tell her that the woman will just be a concubine. I hope your garage is warm.

It isn't a "moral" issue if it was allowed in the OT.

Women are also no longer treated like property, a man can sleep in the same bed as his wife during her period (prohibited in Leviticus), etc. We consider slavery immoral, although it is sanctioned in the Bible.

However, there is a serious problem. Now that we are becoming more global, those from Islamic countries come to the States. They have 4 wives, whether the US recognizes them. The problem is that a man with 4 wives can't claim them as dependents, nor his children, for tax reasons, insurance, etc., and so, polygamy is something that we will have to look at seriously.

However, this has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

he's not talking about slippery slope, it's called reductio ad absurdum and it's a valid argument.

if you hold that homosexuals have the right to marry because the state should not restrict sexual relationships of consenting adults, the same argument could be used to justify polygamy and incest. So by bringing up polygamy and incest he's attempting to invalidate the premise that the state should not restrict sexual relationships of consenting adults.

it's perfectly reasonable to ask someone who supports homosexual marriage but doesn't support polygamy why they support one and not the other.

That's not what the rest of us got from his argument...

It sounded more like a "If you don't get my point of view, you're not as smart as me" sort of thing. After the "You people can't be as clueless as you seem" comment, the intentions were clear.

As someone else mentioned earlier, why isn't this train of thought backward compatible? If homosexual marriage is the root of polygamy and incest, is heterosexual marriage not the root of gay marriage???

You can't support progression conditionally and cut it off when it contradicts the bible...You need to realize that as time goes on, there is more and more in the bible that will become obsolete.

Did people have a similar discussion to this when someone suggested that the earth might not be flat with 4 corners? I know certain people still try to use biblical arguments against interracial marriage as well and it disgusts me.

Any concept can progress into something bad if you want to take it far enough and not use common sense. There is valid medical reasoning against incest, and there might even be a few issues of legality when it comes to polygamy (if he divorces 1, who's entitled to the money?)...but as of yet, nobody has been able to provide any valid, non-biblical reasoning against same sex marriage other than what it could lead to in a one in a million scenario...

Also, if this line of reasoning is okay, why is nobody willing to address my post from earlier???

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?

Is it because you truly feel this logic is okay, or do you just feel it's okay when it suits the point you're trying to make?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Really?

No Takers?

 

[quatona]

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.

Please explain why homosexual marriage of two persons suggests the slippery slope of multiple marriage any more than heterosexual marriage of two persons does.

The question "Why don´t we have multiple partner marriage" may or may not be an interesting question, but there´s no logical connection whatsoever to gay marriage any more than there is to straight marriage, interracial marriage, intercultural marriage etc.

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....

Since I don´t recall arguing from the "civil rights cry from the homosexuals" (whatever you may mean when saying that), I fail to see why you ask me this question.

 

[quatona]

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

I think the name of the fallacy committed in the OP is not "strawman", but "slippery slope".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the name of the fallacy committed in the OP is not "strawman", but "slippery slope".

I was thinking straw man along the lines of misrepresenting the other side in efforts to make ones own argument seem more rational...

But, you're right, it's a slippery slope as well...

 

[R3quiem]

Each legalization should be viewed individually- that is, one allowance (say, for interracial marriage or for gay marriage) does not necessarily lead to the next step.

If two consenting adults want to get married, who does that hurt? If three, four, or five consenting adults want to get married, who does that hurt? As long as people and their children are not getting abused (which can and does happen in straight marriages), then I see no legal reason to disallow it.

With incest, it causes medical problems with children, and therefore could and should be considered abusive.

Look how we have evolved. Let us all pat ourselves on the back, huh kids?

Yes, we have improved quite a bit from the founding of this country. We used to commit genocide against native Americans, keep people of African descent as slaves, kept the right to vote away from women, and disallowed interracial marriage.

 

[R3quiem]

I find people that attack gay marriage on the grounds that it threatens traditional marriage very interesting.

In Las Vegas, one can find a woman, enter a drive-through wedding service, and pay $11 to get legally married by an Elvis impersonator.

And yet, I don't see Christians up in arms in big numbers against this kind of institution. Britney spears was married for 55 hours and then ended it. Does that threaten traditional marriage? Should we bar celebrities from getting married, because of how notoriously short their marriages on average last?

If people were truly interested with defending their version of "traditional" marriage instead of being focused on personal bias and prejudice, they would spend just as much time attacking people who paid $11 to be married by Elvis as they do attacking homosexuals.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think there are several issues involved in the question of marriage. One aspect of the question is whether or not the proper opposite of legal is illegal, and vice versa.

What does it mean to say something is legal? Is it merely that something is not restricted? It is that something is regulated? Marriage is not restricted, in one sense. Adultery too is not restricted. The first is regulated. The second is not.

Polygamy might be illegal in the sense that it is not recognized, but it could be legal at the same time in the sense that we might choose to not regulate it either. The consequences are that the government does not choose to play a role in enforcing contracts. It simply is too difficult and not worth the man-hours to do. OTOH, it may choose to prosecute. That is, to restrict and forbid the practice. Presumably, this would because the practice is perceived to detrimental to a well-functioning society.

I think the state might well choose to look the other way for those that choose to live in plural marriages of any sort (provided there is no reports of abuse). But they could also choose to not facilitate (regulate) marriage contracts. That is, anyone entering such an arrangement would be on their own to protect their interests by drawing up all the contracts implied by a regulated marriage.

 

[tulc]

I was thinking straw man along the lines of misrepresenting the other side in efforts to make ones own argument seem more rational...

But, you're right, it's a slippery slope as well...

uhmmm how about a "slippery straw man"? Or the worst one of all: a "slippery red straw herring"!)
tulc(hates that one the most!)

 

[R3quiem]

But they could also choose to not facilitate (regulate) marriage contracts. That is, anyone entering such an arrangement would be on their own to protect their interests by drawing up all the contracts implied by a regulated marriage.

But aside from emotional reasons, tax benefits and other government-recognized things such as the ability to visit loved ones in hospitals is what those who seek marriage legalization are after.