Jump to content

Home

Gay Marriage


Rogue Nine
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Polygamy and same-sex marriage are different issues and one has nothing to do with the other. I stand by my position that anyone who believes polygamy would naturally follow if same-sex marriage were allowed is an uninformed belief.

 

This is because, while there is ample evidence that polygamous and polyandrous marriages are socially problematic with increased incidences of abuse and neglect over monogamous marriages, there are no data to support the same charge for same-sex relationships and marriages. I might add, that there are plenty of geographic places where same-sex marriage has existed for at least one generation, so the data would be available.

 

Therefore, there is ample reason for society to allow same-sex marriage and not polygamous marriages. Therefore, to state that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamous relationships or pedophilia is an ignorant statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under that rational let’s outlaw marriage altogether, because there is no rational reason to deny polygamy now. If you can have a law that only a man and a woman can marry, why can’t you have a law where only two individuals can marry? Then you are not suppressing individual rights. Individual rights are something I believe this country was founded on. To me it is not about a popularity contest, it is not about giving people extra rights, it is about everyone having the same rights.

 

But that is the point. If marriage is to be open to consenting adults, then why just restrict it to heterosexual and homosexual unions between 2 consenting adults? Gay people fight and abuse one another, just like straights w/in the confines of a married/monagamous relationship. No surprise you'd find problems in a polygamist union. So, if gays are to be officially allowed to marry, why not the other? No one, including Skin, has provided a reason why gay marriage is so important as an issue that the consideration should end there. Maybe spideral was right (ohh, the irony)....just ban marriage. People can then make commitments to one another, draw up contracts defining those commitments and have all the benefits traditionally given to officially married people.

 

 

@ender---always with the cheap shots, eh. Nothing changes. Your comments only display your own igorance. No fallacies were successfully demonstrated. Also, my point about societal norms, which clearly went over both yours and r9's head, was related to the subject. You don't need to have the majority of society believe something is ok for it to be enacted into law. Just enough of a plurality. For something to be considered normal by society is different altogether. So, you get an F for comprehension and sloppy logic.

 

You know, I was just saying to myself that a divorce involving a polygamous marriage would indeed be a legal nightmare. :p

 

Yeah, but a lawyer's wet dream. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is the point.

What point? Marriage is open to two consenting heterosexual couples today and we do not allow polygamist marriages. What are you worried about that homosexual couples would demand to be polygamist? Otherwise I see no point to this argument.

 

So I agree either ban marriage altogether or allow everyone the same and equal rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What point? Marriage is open to two consenting heterosexual couples today and we do not allow polygamist marriages. What are you worried about that homosexual couples would demand to be polygamist? Otherwise I see no point to this argument.

 

No, he's legitimately pointing out that polygamist groups and pedophile groups for that matter could use this argument to say that they should be allowed to marry too. Because once you open it for one group, you open it for the others.

 

 

So I agree either ban marriage altogether or allow everyone the same and equal rights.

 

The difference between the others and marriage between a man and a woman is in order for children to be born. You need one man and one woman to mate and the offspring would be there child, thus in order for there to be a stable situation for that child, you can argue that marriage between a man and a woman is different from the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes a lot of sense to restrict people’s individual rights in order to prevent the ill conveyed and illogical idea of what might happen. I may get shot, so let outlaw everyone’s right to own guns. Makes perfect sense to me and I thought the conservatives were the ones for keeping the government out of our lives, I guess that means everywhere but the bedroom (oh and our phones).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if gays are to be officially allowed to marry, why not the other? No one, including Skin, has provided a reason why gay marriage is so important as an issue that the consideration should end there.

He did, actually. You don't get to say 'nuh-uh' without directly refuting his points. It's a most Garfield-esque tactic.

 

No fallacies were successfully demonstrated.

Again, you don't just get to say 'no' without backing it up. Allowing gay marriage does not logically cause the legalization of polygamy. You have yet to show how it does because that is the entire crux of your argument. Until you do so, you have committed a fallacy and are wrong.

 

Also, my point about societal norms, which clearly went over both yours and r9's head, was related to the subject. You don't need to have the majority of society believe something is ok for it to be enacted into law. Just enough of a plurality. For something to be considered normal by society is different altogether. So, you get an F for comprehension and sloppy logic.

I understood your point about societal norms. It is true that most of society doesn't consider 'homosexuality' normal and that change will likely come slowly. But this is still not a reason to deny homosexual marriage.

 

Is ours not a large population? Roughly even split, that it may be. I know, it just... pisses you off. Regardless your feelings on the matter, ce' la vie, this is the way it is.

For now, it's the way it is. However, the proposition before Prop 8 that did away with gay marriage, Proposition 22 in 2000, passed with a 61/39 split. Given the fact that Prop 8 passed with a 52/48 split, it stands to reason that the population is changing their opinion on it. Not quite in the right way yet, but it'll happen.

 

Hope? Certainly your prerogative and I'm not taking anything away from that at all. However, I do recall the vaunted Asian societies so many here seem to hold high (TBH myself included at times) have a little something to say about hope. It was in some famous work, The Art of War, Book of five rings, something like that. What IT was, was that 'hope' (as opposed to contentment and happiness with what you are already given in your everyday life) leads to unrealistic expectations and a growing sort of want similar to hunger. A hunger I might also add builds upon itself and is NEVER satisfied...not all that different from the wanting that (left unchecked) snowballs into greed. Basically: Hope leads to insatiable wanting...an argument of the very same for greed I could see even you using against corporate greed and other things. Just something to consider.

I'm sorry, did you just tell me not to hope because some old dead Asian guy made some existential comment on hope? You'll forgive me if I think this is a load of crock.

 

Besides, I don't see you getting all ruffled up about it when it just so happens to go favorably your way.

I am ecstatic when a decision is made to give people their rights back.

 

So what are you getting all fluffed up like a turkey for? You want to change it and override the vote now? ...yet you accuse your opposition of wanting to be tyrants. :carms:

Where did I say this? Please point it out to me.

 

Similarly to how you'd say to the opposition, I have for you: That's the way the cookie crumbles. It was a vote, and a vote you lost. Be a sport. Get over it.

I'll remember this. I'll remember to say it to you when the time comes that people see reason and vote to give homosexual couples their rights back.

 

Then you might be interested to know that back in the 60's, gays demanded that they be treated different because they were different. Now they want it all the same again? There is an expression called having your pie and eating it too...Just by-the-by. I'd like to throw it in right here. That's exactly what this is.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain this more fully because I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, other than 'gays shut up because you're queer'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under that rational let’s outlaw marriage altogether, because there is no rational reason to deny polygamy now.

 

You basically got the point. ;) I'm not worried about anyone turning polygamist, hetero or homo. This whole thread really boils down to a question of fairness in the eyes of some people. Shouldn't homosexuals have the right to marry other homosexuals? However, current law does grant heteros and homos the same right.....to marry someone of the opposite sex. It may seem harsh to some, but it's not unfair. When the question becomes why can't same marry same, it continues to beg other questions, regardless of how some people feel about that fact. And keep in mind.....nowhere do I talk about a slippery slop to pedophilia (doesn't involve consenting adults), that's merely the irrational and hysterical jump made by some of those arguing with me. So, even if you want to argue that the "decent" thing to do is to change the law to reflect contemporary progressive ideas, nobody is getting preferential treatment insofar as the current law is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, lets go over the main three arguments and refutations that we have been over again and again through out the thread in a nutshell:

 

The "gay marage will lead to Polygamist and child marrages" argument:

-slippery slope fallacy.

-children cannot give informed consent while adults can.

-polygamy is more prone to abuse and neglect and abuse than gay and strait marrages are.

-countries where gay marrrage are allowed have not led to polygamy and child marrages

 

The "gays shouldn't marry becuase thay can't make babies" argument:

-Marrage isn't solely for the purpose of babies.

-they can adopt

-Infertle people cant have babies either, so would you ban them from marrage?

 

The "being adopted by gays will make the adopted children gay" argument:

-unsupported assertion

 

Theese are the most recycled arguments exchanged in this long thread. Can Garfeild and his Friends refute the listed refutations above and go from there instead of restating the same arguments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You basically got the point. ;) I'm not worried about anyone turning polygamist, hetero or homo. This whole thread really boils down to a question of fairness in the eyes of some people. Shouldn't homosexuals have the right to marry other homosexuals? However, current law does grant heteros and homos the same right.....to marry someone of the opposite sex. It may seem harsh to some, but it's not unfair.

 

if you look at it from another perspective, heterosexuals are able to marry the person they love/want to get a tax break with/get drunk enough to love/in a vegas chapel with an elvis impersonator with for an hour and homosexuals aren't, which kind of brings me to my next point that marriage is far from sacred now anyway so uh **** it why not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comments only display your own igorance.

If I am, in your eyes, using cheap shots, how is this not hypocritical?

 

 

No fallacies were successfully demonstrated.

I would be inclined to disagree. Perhaps you would like to explain how ""Afterall, if two gay adults can "marry" than why stop there"" is not a slippery slope argument?

 

Also, my point about societal norms, which clearly went over both yours and r9's head, was related to the subject.

 

Ahh, of course. It wasn't that I read and understood your argument, and then ascertained that it was impertinent, it must be that it went over my head. By all means, continue with what you berated me for, your grace.

 

As Niner said - it wasn't an incorrect point, but it is irrelevant to the argument progressing.

 

You don't need to have the majority of society believe something is ok for it to be enacted into law. Just enough of a plurality.

 

Fail to see how this is... even important, actually. You do know this thread is discussing why gay marriage should be legalized (or not) right?

 

Or is this supposed to be going somewhere?

 

For something to be considered normal by society is different altogether.

 

Brilliant analysis, good sir. Very good contribution, that. Good thing we have you around.

 

So, you get an F for comprehension and sloppy logic.

 

Interesting that in this scenario you believe you are entitled to grade me. If this holds true, then I would wager I'd be able to do the same. In my eyes (and believe me, I'm not the only one), you don't get any better of a grade in the logic department.

 

Also great that I'm getting an F for comprehension - make sure you realize that this means you're getting an F for making rational and topical arguments :)

 

EDIT:: Also, the jury came back, and the result is unanimous: this comment makes you an utter asshat.

 

_EW_

Edited by EnderWiggin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're also against allowing sterile people to marry?

 

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that from a natural standpoint it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, if one or both are sterile so be it, and with the fertility clinics you seem to advocate, they can produce children via artificial means from both parents, still semi-natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can Garfeild and his Friends refute the listed refutations above and go from there instead of restating the same arguments?
I vote "no".

 

The truth is that there are no solid arguments against gay marriage. That's why we get the same rhetoric over and over again. Also see: abortion, religion, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and with the fertility clinics you seem to advocate, they can produce children via artificial means from both parents, still semi-natural.
Not all.

 

So a Lesbian couple can produce a child via artificial means, so you are alright with Lesbian marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can a Lesbian couple, so you are alright with Lesbian marriage?

 

Well consider this, while radical feminists want this, do you particularly want men to no longer have a purpose for existing?

 

I imagine most guys wouldn't mind lesbians having affairs though despite being married to a guy, heck I doubt most guys would even be jealous.

 

The truth is that there are no solid arguments against gay marriage. That's why we get the same rhetoric over and over again. Also see: abortion, religion, etc.

 

There is no valid reason for gay marriage either, in fact I can argue gay marriage is discriminatory to straight people. Gay people can marry with a heterosexual right now and still carry on their love life, heck they don't even have to marry right now and many insurance companies will carry their partner.

 

If two straight people try to get together and file for joint insurance, if they aren't married they can't put their partner on the coverage. Classic discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well consider this, while radical feminists want this, do you particularly want men to no longer have a purpose for existing?

What are you talking about? How is allowing lesbians to have children going to lead to the extinction of men?

 

I imagine most guys wouldn't mind lesbians having affairs though despite being married to a guy, heck I doubt most guys would even be jealous.

If they are a lesbian, I doubt they'd be married to a guy.

 

There is no valid reason for gay marriage either

How about that it is unconstitutional and has been ruled as such in 4 states?

 

There is plenty of reason. You just don't want to acknowledge them.

 

In fact I can argue gay marriage is discriminatory to straight people. Gay people can marry with a heterosexual right now and still carry on their love life.

A heterosexual couple can marry and one of them can be in a relationship with someone. Its called an affair.

 

heck they don't even have to marry right now and many insurance companies will carry their partner.

Source. My gay friends have been denied insurance for years because their marriage does not count.

 

If two straight people try to get together and file for joint insurance, if they aren't married they can't put their partner on the coverage. Classic discrimination.

What? How is that discrimination and how does that relate to this topic?

 

Also, what are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no valid reason for gay marriage either
Sure there is. Without a valid reason to prohibit it, the practice is discriminatory and therefore an equal rights violation. If there is a valid reason, then I'd love to hear what it is, however I'm going to pull another Carnac and predict that we're only going to see more rhetoric.

 

in fact I can argue gay marriage is discriminatory to straight people. Gay people can marry with a heterosexual right now and still carry on their love life, heck they don't even have to marry right now and many insurance companies will carry their partner.

 

If two straight people try to get together and file for joint insurance, if they aren't married they can't put their partner on the coverage. Classic discrimination.

Errr, your "beef" with insurance company policy has absolutely nothing to do with systematic discrimination carried out by the government. :confused:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...