Everything BUT marriage

[thegreekdog]

And if they want to argue that, then so be it. I disagree, but there's obviously nothing I can do but accept that as their belief.

I'm more referring to the type of people who believe homosexuality is something you can go to a doctor or class to "cure".

Yes, I tend to agree with you. Even if it was a choice, it is not a wrong choice.

[F1fth]

It is a moral issue yes, but it's a moral issue where another being is harmed - a far different case from homosexual marriage. For you to tie homosexual marriage into animal cruelty is way beneath you, thegreekdog. I'm disappointed.

Someone who argues that homosexual marriage is impermissible would argue that someone is harmed.

I'm not tying homosexual marriage to animal cruelty, don't be ridiculous. You are all pulling straw men out of your asses. It's driving me f8cking nuts. It's one or two fairly simple concepts. Accept what I'm telling you because it's true.

IF YOU ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE, SO ARE OTHER THINGS.

IF YOU ARGUE THAT BESTIALITY OR POLYGAMY IS MORALLY WRONG, WHY IS THAT OKAY BUT IT IS NOT OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY WRONG.

I apparently can't say this enough, I'm an ardent supporter of gay marriage. I'm trying to bring some reasonableness to this argument. Some people do not believe in gay marriage. Just because you think they are wrong, does not mean that their beliefs are not without merit and that they are open to ridicule. You want people to respect gay marriage, then you better goddamn well respect those people in return.

Don't you remember that you were the one who focused this debate on dog fucking?

Let me ask you this... why is it illegal for a dude have sex with his dog? Religion or disgust?

was your entire response to my post. And people replied to your post with the correct answer... because they are DIFFERENT.
What I was trying to say (albeit in a much less clear manner, I'll admit -- I rushed that post) was that denying people a right to act freely in this regard on the sole basis of one's religious beliefs which other people in this country may not share infringes on some pretty important principles of our country.

Whether you could make an argument for polygamy and bestiality (which I think you certainly could, if you wish) is irrelevant to the issue. Besides, I don't think polygamy is wrong (frankly, I could care less), nor do I particularly care about bestiality either, but as others have said in this thread, the case for bestiality has some important differences from gay marriage that you cannot just ignore as you have been trying to do.

[thegreekdog]

No, you're right... ignore my bestiality comments. That was stupid on my part.

My point is that: (1) there is no right to gay marriage (or any marriage) as of yet and (2) if there is a right to marriage, there should also necessarily be a right to at least polygamy.

In terms of people imposing their religious beliefs, they would argue that they are not imposing their religious beliefs on you, you are imposing your immoral beliefs on them. There are two sides to this and I think one side (which I agree with) is being completely dismissive and pigheaded and not attempting to discuss the issue with the other side. Which is ironic because I think the conservative side is pigheaded with respect to this issue.

[lgoasklucyl]

I think bringing polygamy into the debate is kind of unfair.

The problem here is that two people would like to take part in the same sanctioned ceremony that others are allowed to. This does not veer away from the system (as polygamy does) as it's two people. To not let these people do so based on their genders is segregation.

If someone wants to lobby for polygamy that's entirely different because you're changing marriage entirely by having more than two people involved.

[bradleybadly]

I think bringing polygamy into the debate is kind of unfair.

The problem here is that two people would like to take part in the same sanctioned ceremony that others are allowed to. This does not veer away from the system (as polygamy does) as it's two people. To not let these people do so based on their genders is segregation.

If someone wants to lobby for polygamy that's entirely different because you're changing marriage entirely by having more than two people involved.

?????

It's the leftists that are saying marriage should be based on consent! You're already changing marriage entirely by saying that it involves 2 people of the same gender instead of 1 man and 1 woman. Why do 2 people of the same gender get to have the benefit of consent but when the equation is changed numerically it somehow becomes a different ballgame? After all, it's all about consent. I guess homosexuals get a special status while you guys say screw you to the polygamists. EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYBODY!!!

[Woodruff]

It is a moral issue yes, but it's a moral issue where another being is harmed - a far different case from homosexual marriage. For you to tie homosexual marriage into animal cruelty is way beneath you, thegreekdog. I'm disappointed.

Someone who argues that homosexual marriage is impermissible would argue that someone is harmed.

I've never heard that argument, then...perhaps you can give me an example?

I'm not tying homosexual marriage to animal cruelty, don't be ridiculous. You are all pulling straw men out of your asses. It's driving me f8cking nuts. It's one or two fairly simple concepts. Accept what I'm telling you because it's true.

No, that's precisely what you did do.

IF YOU ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE, SO ARE OTHER THINGS.

I agree, regarding polygamy. I completely disagree, regarding beastiality and child abuse.

IF YOU ARGUE THAT BESTIALITY OR POLYGAMY IS MORALLY WRONG, WHY IS THAT OKAY BUT IT IS NOT OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY WRONG.

I've already explained why, and you simply ignored it without any counter. There's not much else to be done if you're going to do that, I suppose.

I apparently can't say this enough, I'm an ardent supporter of gay marriage. I'm trying to bring some reasonableness to this argument. Some people do not believe in gay marriage. Just because you think they are wrong, does not mean that their beliefs are not without merit and that they are open to ridicule. You want people to respect gay marriage, then you better goddamn well respect those people in return.

I agree completely. I don't believe I've disrespected them at all.

I think bringing polygamy into the debate is kind of unfair.

The problem here is that two people would like to take part in the same sanctioned ceremony that others are allowed to. This does not veer away from the system (as polygamy does) as it's two people. To not let these people do so based on their genders is segregation.

If someone wants to lobby for polygamy that's entirely different because you're changing marriage entirely by having more than two people involved.

Actually, that sounds precisely like the argument that the anti-homosexual-marriage folks use to stop homosexual marriage - that it's changing marriage entirely by having it not be between a man and a woman.

[lgoasklucyl]

?????

It's the leftists that are saying marriage should be based on consent! You're already changing marriage entirely by saying that it involves 2 people of the same gender instead of 1 man and 1 woman. Why do 2 people of the same gender get to have the benefit of consent but when the equation is changed numerically it somehow becomes a different ballgame? After all, it's all about consent. I guess homosexuals get a special status while you guys say screw you to the polygamists. EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYBODY!!!

What?

a. You're generalizing 'leftists' to everyone arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, which very few (if any) people in this thread currently are certified 'leftists'.

b. My argument is not based on consent, it's based on discrimination. People deserve equal rights. I am a SAME-SEX MARRIAGE advocate. It's no different than heterosexual marriage set aside genders involved, and is therefore discrimination. Introducing more people (3+) into the equation changes it entirely.

Marriage is not an AMERICAN practice. It's a world-wide practice. In our country it has, historically, been between a man and a woman. This is based on societal norms which are based on nothing but religion. Therefore, it has NO PLACE in law.

c. Are you vying for polygamy or something? The only person with a special status right now is heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples currently have what's referred to as a minority status, and one that has less rights than the 'special status' majority.

d. Quit beating around the bush and leaving comments that have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. If you can't think up an argument against gay marriage that isn't "BUT A GUY CAN'T MARRY 14 WOMEN AND HIS DOG!!!!", which no one is advocating for in this thread, kindly piss off and crawl back into your cave, troll.

[john9blue]

Lucy, you say that polygamy "changes things entirely" but still have provided no reasons why. This leads me to believe that it is an unfounded belief of yours which you are pushing onto others, which ironically enough is what you are accusing anti-gay marriage people of doing. That is the problem with your argument- it is hypocritical. No offense though... a lot of people expect special treatment for their beliefs... it's just how the human mind works.

[bradleybadly]

a. You're generalizing 'leftists' to everyone arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, which very few (if any) people in this thread currently are certified 'leftists'.

I guarantee you that most of the people on this website that support same sex marriage voted for Barack Obama or are liberal Democrats. If they're not, then they usually are European socialists. There are very few exceptions.

1. My argument is not based on consent, it's based on discrimination. People deserve equal rights.

Yes, open it up to ALL people, not just groups which you have a fondness for. Polygamists, Incest Practicers, and those who want to marry children have all been discriminated against. They deserve equal rights and to be free of discrimination from people like you.

It's no different than heterosexual marriage set aside genders involved, and is therefore discrimination.

Just like mountains are no different than below sea level, minus the elevation. Elephants are also no different than lions, minus the trunks and huge ears. There is no difference between murder and shoplifting, other than the loss of life.

Introducing more people (3+) into the equation changes it entirely.

As does changing the definition from 1 man and woman to 2 people of the same gender.

Marriage is not an AMERICAN practice. It's a world-wide practice. In our country it has, historically, been between a man and a woman. This is based on societal norms which are based on nothing but religion. Therefore, it has NO PLACE in law.

Yes, nobody ever practiced marriage between one man and one woman before the United States existed. It has no place in law Ok then, call off all these same sex advocates trying to change the law.

c. Are you vying for polygamy or something? The only person with a special status right now is heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples currently have what's referred to as a minority status, and one that has less rights than the 'special status' majority.

Sure, if you believe a sexual behavior is the same as someone's skin color. Polygamists are also a minority group. Hardly fair for them not to be included within the big, broad rainbow of tolerance. Equality for everyone. Let's start celebrating with Polygamy Pride marches around the country. Don't be a bigot.

d. Quit beating around the bush and leaving comments that have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. If you can't think up an argument against gay marriage that isn't "BUT A GUY CAN'T MARRY 14 WOMEN AND HIS DOG!!!!", which no one is advocating for in this thread, kindly piss off and crawl back into your cave, troll.

No thanks because you're providing me with one of the best meltdowns I've witnessed since Dancing Mustard was here. LOOK, I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS TOO AND USE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Woodruff]

a. You're generalizing 'leftists' to everyone arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, which very few (if any) people in this thread currently are certified 'leftists'.

I guarantee you that most of the people on this website that support same sex marriage voted for Barack Obama or are liberal Democrats. If they're not, then they usually are European socialists. There are very few exceptions.

That's a guarantee that I feel very comfortable in thinking it holds no water at all. I am certainly no liberal Democrat, though I did vote for Barack Obama (John McCain's voting record against military veterans is reprehensible). I'm certainly no European, though I did enjoy my time stationed in Germany.

1. My argument is not based on consent, it's based on discrimination. People deserve equal rights.

Yes, open it up to ALL people, not just groups which you have a fondness for. Polygamists, Incest Practicers, and those who want to marry children have all been discriminated against. They deserve equal rights and to be free of discrimination from people like you.

Incorrect...polygamists, yes. Incest with a guarantee of no offspring and both are consenting adults, yes. Those who want to marry children? It's ridiculous that you believe this belongs in the same discussion, but it does show the depth of desperation you're feeling in trying to persuade the argument in your preferred direction. Unfortunately for you, it has the opposite effect, as rational folks recognize it for what it is.

d. Quit beating around the bush and leaving comments that have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. If you can't think up an argument against gay marriage that isn't "BUT A GUY CAN'T MARRY 14 WOMEN AND HIS DOG!!!!", which no one is advocating for in this thread, kindly piss off and crawl back into your cave, troll.

No thanks because you're providing me with one of the best meltdowns I've witnessed since Dancing Mustard was here. LOOK, I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS TOO AND USE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

So THAT'S why you don't use rational arguments - you just want a meltdown. I was wondering why you were doing that.

[notyou2]

Its amazing how anything about gays brings the bigoted right out of the closet.

LMAO

[Timminz]

Its amazing how anything about gays brings the bigoted right out of the closet.

LMAO

...right out of the closet...

hurhur

[Frigidus]

Its amazing how anything about gays brings the bigoted right out of the closet.

LMAO

...right out of the closet...

hurhur

[john9blue]

I guarantee you that most of the people on this website that support same sex marriage voted for Barack Obama or are liberal Democrats. If they're not, then they usually are European socialists. There are very few exceptions.

I feel special now.

[Snorri1234]

Lucy, you say that polygamy "changes things entirely" but still have provided no reasons why.

Want me to provide some reasons?

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... it seems people don't actually read my posts. Wait! They won't read this one either. Let's try again - as I've said approximately 2 or 3 thousand times, I'm pro gay marriage. Let me repost this:

"My point is that: (1) there is no right to gay marriage (or any marriage) as of yet and (2) if there is a right to marriage, there should also necessarily be a right to at least polygamy.

In terms of people imposing their religious beliefs, they would argue that they are not imposing their religious beliefs on you, you are imposing your immoral beliefs on them. There are two sides to this and I think one side (which I agree with) is being completely dismissive and pigheaded and not attempting to discuss the issue with the other side. Which is ironic because I think the conservative side is pigheaded with respect to this issue."

Anyway, based on this lucy character's post, I'd have to say at this point I'm done with this thread. If most of youse can't understand what I'm getting at, it's not worthwhile for me to post what are intelligent, thoughtful, well-reasoned, and innocuous posts.

Oh... and here is an excellent illustration of my ultimate point about issues of morality:

I think bringing polygamy into the debate is kind of unfair.

The problem here is that two people would like to take part in the same sanctioned ceremony that others are allowed to. This does not veer away from the system (as polygamy does) as it's two people. To not let these people do so based on their genders is segregation.

If someone wants to lobby for polygamy that's entirely different because you're changing marriage entirely by having more than two people involved.

Actually, that sounds precisely like the argument that the anti-homosexual-marriage folks use to stop homosexual marriage - that it's changing marriage entirely by having it not be between a man and a woman.

Here we have a person who is pro gay marriage who is also anti-polygamy because he/she has a moral problem with it.

[thegreekdog]

To Woodruff (I couuldn't help myself... seriously, I have a problem... help me):

(1) Catholics would argue that persons engaging in homosexual relations are committing a sin and thus harming themselves. Further, Catholics would argue that permitting homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriages. THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT SO PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF MY SANITY, DO NOT ATTACK ME ON THIS.

(2) I am not tying homosexual marriage to animal cruelty. In any event, I dropped the bestiality thing because I'm wrong.

(3) Bestiality and child abuse are out. I'm not mentioning them any more.

(4) Let me rephrase this one - if you argue that polygamy is morally wrong (not you Woodruff, others, including the US Supreme Court), it is not okay for you to blast someone who thinks homosexuality is morally wrong. You must be consistent with this, in my opinion.

(5) You have not disrespected people who are against gay marriage. Others have. Not every post I type out is directed towards you.

[MeDeFe]

Even though your post was directed at Woody, I'll chime in.

To Woodruff (I couuldn't help myself... seriously, I have a problem... help me):

(1) Catholics would argue that persons engaging in homosexual relations are committing a sin and thus harming themselves. Further, Catholics would argue that permitting homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriages. THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT SO PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF MY SANITY, DO NOT ATTACK ME ON THIS.

If it isn't your position, don't use it as an argument, to be on the safe side, don't even mention it but let someone who actually thinks it's valid use it.

(2) I am not tying homosexual marriage to animal cruelty. In any event, I dropped the bestiality thing because I'm wrong.

Good thing you did, because you were looking rather silly.

(3) Bestiality and child abuse are out. I'm not mentioning them any more.

Thank you.

(4) Let me rephrase this one - if you argue that polygamy is morally wrong (not you Woodruff, others, including the US Supreme Court), it is not okay for you to blast someone who thinks homosexuality is morally wrong. You must be consistent with this, in my opinion.

I don't think polygamy is morally wrong, I don't see the essential difference between 2 or 3 or 42 people all being married to each other. If they can make the relationship work, so much better for them.

[PLAYER57832]

I think bringing polygamy into the debate is kind of unfair.

The problem here is that two people would like to take part in the same sanctioned ceremony that others are allowed to. This does not veer away from the system (as polygamy does) as it's two people. To not let these people do so based on their genders is segregation.

If someone wants to lobby for polygamy that's entirely different because you're changing marriage entirely by having more than two people involved.

I agree, but for a different set of reasons.

Historically, marriage has 2 primary purposes -- power sharing and protection ("legitimization", etc.) of children. Polygamy alters both of these in ways a homosexual union would not. Polygamy almost instantly implies many, many children. You can argue that this is little different from simply "sleeping around", but even though the question of "legitimacy" is far less now than it was, it is still an issue.

The other, purpose of marriage is companionship. Of course this was a purpose all along, but legally and so forth, it was secondary up until modern times. Along with that is the "codification" of various legal protections that the state has conveniently tied to marriage.

If you are married, you get a share of your spouse's retirement accounts almost automatically (a few exceptions, but generally true). You generally (depends a little on the state, etc.) don't have to pay inheritance taxes on spousal possessions. You get the automatic legal right to make decisions about your partner without having to pay a lawyer fees to draw up documents that may or may not be both readily available and recognized in an emergency. Spouses share joint custody of children, again without going through a lot of legal hooplas and trouble.

All of those latter issues can be applied to homosexual unions without much problem. Transferring them to polygamy situations would be much more tricky. How, for example would you split social security payments? Child custody?

All of those issues make polygamy a separate issue and give real reason to distinguish it from other types of unions.

[PLAYER57832]

Even though your post was directed at Woody, I'll chime in.

To Woodruff (I couuldn't help myself... seriously, I have a problem... help me):

(1) Catholics would argue that persons engaging in homosexual relations are committing a sin and thus harming themselves. Further, Catholics would argue that permitting homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriages. THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT SO PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF MY SANITY, DO NOT ATTACK ME ON THIS.

If it isn't your position, don't use it as an argument, to be on the safe side, don't even mention it but let someone who actually thinks it's valid use it.

I don't think this way, but almost did at one point and have certainly heard enough on it to answer at least partially.

The primary arguments I have heard can be summed up by "homosexuals spread homosexuality". Sometimes it is phrased as an "agenda", sometimes it is phrased more specifically or delicately. Pope### said essentially that there is a period of adolescense where kids are vulnerable to "suggestion" and can be influenced to become homosexual.

That argument is essentially where my "might as well tell women not to wear bikinis" response came in. I suspect there is a modicum of truth there. (bear with me). That is, being abused as a child by a pedophile can lead to being a pedophile, etc. However, there is a clear distinction here and some limits. No one but the insane are arguing that children should be exposed to homosexual sex any more than heterosexual sex . But, beyond that it is up to parents to decide. Some parents don't want their kids to even see a naked image. Others live in nudist coloneys. Some see no problem with letting their kids view playboy (NOT saying those things are equivalent!) This is part of the freedom of this country.

When someone starts saying that merely hearing about homosexuality, learning about it in a way that is not entirely negative, etc. is going to "turn kids homosexual", it sets some major alarms off in my mind. It is not so long ago that any woman out alone could be accused of "askin for" rape. Even today, some people still refer to women who dress "loosely" as "asking for it".

A further irony here, and I speak from experience, is that more often than not people who are so "clear" on the "harm" that homosexuals cause have no more a clue about who is homosexual (other than those who are vocal about it, of course) than they do about the surface of Pluto.

These are issues I have experiences first hand. I have most definitely faced verbal abuse (thank heavans nothing physical) both just as a woman AND as someone idiots seemed to think was homosexual.

[Snorri1234]

(1) Catholics would argue that persons engaging in homosexual relations are committing a sin and thus harming themselves. Further, Catholics would argue that permitting homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriages.

The fact that they argue it does not mean their point is valid.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not moot my friend. 2) Name 1 "culture" who officially recognized same sex marriage before, lets say 1970? (had to extend it a bit, ya never know, those crazy Europeans are unpredictable) Meanwhile, I'll grab a Snickers.

You can start with ancient Greece and Rome, add in some various other cultures too numerous to name. In many cultures, sex and marriage are not at all or only loosely related. In some tribes, a man may "marry" the leg of a chief to gain power, for example.

As for your other arguments,

No, the Bible does not say you cannot condemn homosexuality. Nor is that what I said. What I said is that telling people they are "going to hell" is not the most effective means of dialogue. I said you don't have the right to keep homosexuals from living their lives, simply because it is not a lifestyle you approve of. The only exception is if the "lifestyle" causes harm to other individuals.

You have not shown how this law will cause harm to anyone other than those who marry in a way you dislike.

You've mistaken those words in bold as mine while I was simply reiterating what jay said...

As for the rest of your post,

Huh? I'm guessing that goes to jay...

[PLAYER57832]

a. You're generalizing 'leftists' to everyone arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, which very few (if any) people in this thread currently are certified 'leftists'.

I guarantee you that most of the people on this website that support same sex marriage voted for Barack Obama or are liberal Democrats. If they're not, then they usually are European socialists. There are very few exceptions.

Relevance? Seems like name-calling and labeling. Usually used when there is no real argument. If you have a real argument... use it, don't resort to stereotypes which are generally at least as wrong as often as they are correct.

Also, not true. Greekdog is hardly a liberal, but I don't believe he is opposed to same-sex marriage (among others). I am not ashamed to call myself liberal, but also have some pretty conservative views when it comes to how I live, teach my kids, etc. I just don't believe I have the right to impose my values on others legally. (debate.. certainly! , but "impose" on others against their will --only when someone will be harmed).

c. Are you vying for polygamy or something? The only person with a special status right now is heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples currently have what's referred to as a minority status, and one that has less rights than the 'special status' majority.

Sure, if you believe a sexual behavior is the same as someone's skin color. Polygamists are also a minority group. Hardly fair for them not to be included within the big, broad rainbow of tolerance. Equality for everyone. Let's start celebrating with Polygamy Pride marches around the country. Don't be a bigot.

This is an old debate. Is homosexuality biological or not? Truth is there is no real 100% answer. Chances are it is a mixture of biology (including genetics, but also chemical influences, etc.), environment (including culture), etc.

Bottom line, in our society, we advocate people's free choice when those choices don't cause anyone else harm. Homosexuality does not cause direct harm to others, so should not be limited. Polygamy is more debateable. (excluding the pedophilia association -- don't think anyone argues that is OK). However, there are practical reasons to exclude it, most specifically the fact that polygamy implies many more children than monogamy.

[lgoasklucyl]

Here we have a person who is pro gay marriage who is also anti-polygamy because he/she has a moral problem with it.

I have not once stated a moral opposition to polygamy.

a. I am supporting same-sex marriage, that's where the argument lies, polygamy is not currently relevant.

b. Many legal difficulties are presented with regards to polygamy that have nothing to do with morals.

[PLAYER57832]

You've mistaken those words in bold as mine while I was simply reiterating what jay said...

As for the rest of your post,

Huh? I'm guessing that goes to jay...

Sorry, fixing it now.