sundevil777 102 #76 July 31, 2003 QuoteI'm not quite on board with your argument that advocating same-sex marriages also necessitates advocating polygamy. Why would this be inconsistent? Please explain further. I don't think it necessitates advocating polygamy, I just think that it allows advocates of polygamy to make the same argument as advocates of same sex marriage. Why should they be prevented from doing what they want? Who does it hurt? I think the general public's attitude about polygamy is so negative because of the image of it involving young girls (in isolated, rural areas) being pushed into arranged multiple marriages. Even if the girls are 18 at the time of marriage (which they don't have to be with parents consent), there is the image of a very isolated, controlling family structure almost brainwashing them, not allowing the girls true freedom of choice. Of course many who would want multiple husbands or wives would not fit this stereotype. I think the laws against polygamy were because many did fit the stereotype exactly, and there was a desire to protect the young girls by law. If you can figure out a way to identify the good from the bad then maybe there is no problem, but I think it would be very difficult for it to be written in law. I think once you consider changing the definition of marriage, you must be prepared to deal with this question. Where am I wrong?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #77 July 31, 2003 QuoteI think once you consider changing the definition of marriage, you must be prepared to deal with this question. Where am I wrong? It's not that I think you're wrong. More like I'm playing 's advocate. If one were to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples without changing the quantity of people involved in a marriage (i.e. marriage defined as a legal coupling of two adults as opposed to a legal coupling of a man and a woman), then the issue of polygamy wouldn't enter the picture at all. It's more an issue of the slippery nature of language. There are plenty of words (love, truth, honor, etc.) with less-than-clear-cut denotations. Problems often arise when people use a term assuming that others are in agreement as to its definition. Who is the ultimate authority on what a word means?A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #78 July 31, 2003 Of course a law can be written to allow same sex marriage that would not involve polygamy in any way. I just think that then you would not be justified in opposing polygamy.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #79 July 31, 2003 QuoteI have a curiosity question for this gay related thread. I don't hang around any fruits (that I'm aware of), so forgive my ignorance. I've noticed that most pairs of lezzies have at least one member that looks "butch" (sometimes borderline evil) - I'm thinking that one likely wears any "appliances", and acts as the "male" member of the pair. Ha ha ha Yes often time it is that way for guys, but not always. And in my case, its often backwards--which sucks. Dammit, I'm not supposed to be the butch one! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #80 July 31, 2003 QuoteI just think that then you would not be justified in opposing polygamy. Well, one would be equally justified in opposing polygamy as one would be in opposing same-sex marriage, no?A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #81 July 31, 2003 First you wrote: QuoteI don't hang around any fruits Then you also wrote: QuoteI've noticed that most pairs of lezzies... And maybe it's just too early in the morning for me, but I'm speechless. You don't know any homosexuals, but you still claim enough experience to know about most of them... What is it about sheltered straight people that causes their minds to operate this way? I seriously think it is exactly this behavior that is the root of ALL the anti-gay nonsense. "I don't have any actual information," they think, "but somewhere along the line I was introduced to a whole package of incredibly unlikely, comically bigotted information which I'm going to take as gospel and form life-shaping opinions from." It wouldn't occur to them that their preconceptions have zero credibility. They spout them with 100% confidence even though they at the VERY SAME TIME say, "And I have never met any." All I can say to you is, "I've never met someone from Tamaqua, Pennsylvania but I've noticed most Tamaquans eat their own babies so how come?" First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #82 July 31, 2003 QuoteQuoteI just think that then you would not be justified in opposing polygamy. Well, one would be equally justified in opposing polygamy as one would be in opposing same-sex marriage, no? Ummm NO actually. They are 2 separate questions that can be considered separately or together. The way the canadians are doing it, Marriage is now an EXCLUSIVE relationship between TWO people. Gay marriage is NOT specifically Illegal, its just not recognized. Whereas polygomy is actually Illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #83 July 31, 2003 QuoteWell, one would be equally justified in opposing polygamy as one would be in opposing same-sex marriage, no? Exactly, I think it is a defensible position. Unfortunately, many think that if you take this position that you are a "hater".People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #84 July 31, 2003 QuoteAnd maybe it's just too early in the morning for me, but I'm speechless. You don't know any homosexuals, .../ /...I seriously think it is exactly this behavior that is the root of ALL the anti-gay nonsense. Whooaaaa THere big boy, Yup its to early for ya. He was just asking a question. All ya had to do was be nice answer it. That will get ya a lot further than pounching on em. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #85 July 31, 2003 You misunderstood my point. I don't think the redefinition of marriage has anything to do with whether one is "justified" in feeling the way they do. I was problemetizing the use of "justification" as a barometer for political decision-making. In particular, I was prodding Sundevil's claim that support for gay marriage necessitates support for polygamy (or rather that the condemnation of polygamy necessitates the condemnation of same-sex marriages).A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #86 July 31, 2003 QuoteAll ya had to do was be nice answer it. Lessee... someone walks up to you with a mess of unflattering, unjustified, and untrue preconceptions then draws a ridiculous conclusion from them and you think the best response is to just answer, "Yup" or "Nope"? Personally I see them as hopeless and the only useful experience to be drawn from it is to learn more about the dynamics of ignorant yet opinionated yahoos. Don't get me wrong! Answering "Yup" or "Nope" is probably harmless and keeps everyone's spirits high. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #87 July 31, 2003 Quoteto learn more about the dynamics of ignorant yet opinionated yahoos. Um, excuse me for a second here. Um, would you be the pot or the kettle here?It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KawiZX900 0 #88 July 31, 2003 I was going to type somthin, but that was before the Mcdonalld's 2 for 2 food coma that I'm under the spell of. What's going on here? Carbon fiber wing guy is on CNN Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #89 July 31, 2003 QuoteQuoteAll ya had to do was be nice answer it. Lessee... someone walks up to you with a mess of unflattering, unjustified, and untrue preconceptions .../ /...Don't get me wrong! Answering "Yup" or "Nope" is probably harmless and keeps everyone's spirits high. Patience. One step at a time. And Beware of Backlash. If you don't jump down someone's throat for asking a silly question... and give them a nice/funny simple answer, tHen they keep asking questions and you can dispell the myths. Ream them for a silly question, they stop asking and blow you off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DYEVOUT 0 #90 July 31, 2003 I don't know if I'd call myself sheltered, I just don't hang around gay folks. When I said "I've noticed", I meant just that - I've seen many very obvious pairs of gay gals, and even dealt with a very "masculine" one on a vehicle transaction. I "spouted" nothing with "100% confidence", I qualified my question early on by admitting my ignorance on the matter. I don't know many Tamaquans (we live in a rural area - SURPRISE!), but I don't eat babies. I really don't like kids. Try Decaf, and have a nice day. ----------------=8^)---------------------- "I think that was the wrong tennis court." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #91 July 31, 2003 QuoteUmmm NO actually. They are 2 separate questions that can be considered separately or together. The way the canadians are doing it, Marriage is now an EXCLUSIVE relationship between TWO people. Gay marriage is NOT specifically Illegal, its just not recognized. Whereas polygomy is actually Illegal. Yes, if it's legally worded that way. But if the argument is that religious bias should not be used to justify the illegality of homosexual marriages. Then why should religious bias be allowed to justify the illegality of polygamy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #92 July 31, 2003 QuoteWhen I said "I've noticed", I meant just that - I've seen many very obvious pairs of gay gals, and even dealt with a very "masculine" one on a vehicle transaction. Then think about the data acquisition biases. You walk through life noticing "That obviously lesbian couple fits my preconceptions about obvious lesbian couples. Check!" It's like saying, "Every building I've seen that was built in the 1800s is still standing, so most construction in the 1800s must have been very strong." What you've noticed is the 2% that were strong, not the 98% that escaped your notice. If television told you all left handed people are redheads, then you went through life noticing all the redheaded lefthanded people, you'd have missed the others. And that's fine in the case of redheads because there's no stigma. But it's not fine when people use those data biases for public policy decisions that restrict people lives. And my point is that's exactly what's happening. For the record, there are SOME lesbian couples that have a more "masculine" partner and there are some that do not. Some lesbians use "appliances" and some do not. Some are obviously lesbian and the others don't get noticed on the street. Some gay men pair up in couples with a more masculine partner and some pair with similarly masculine partners and some form different kinds of partnerships from time to time and some don't pair up at all. Some gay men like to receive anal sex and some like to be tops and some like both and some like neither and some change their mind day to day depending on their mood. Blue guy over there answered you with humor and lightness. I answered analytically. Imagine that. Gay people are DIFFERENT from each other. Gosh. Just like straight people. Go figure. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoby 0 #93 July 31, 2003 QuoteYes, if it's legally worded that way. But if the argument is that religious bias should not be used to justify the illegality of homosexual marriages. Then why should religious bias be allowed to justify the illegality of polygamy? Why again is polygamy illegal? Granted, it doesn't seem like a good idea (because by its very nature, some guys do well, and some get nothing), but I'm not sure how it violates anything other than common sense. I say let the mormons do what they want. It's not like most people would want to do it anyway. I think that, in sexual relations, nearly any situation where consent can be freely given should be allowable. Obviously, this really only disallows pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. But that's cool, different strokes and all that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #94 July 31, 2003 QuoteIf television told you all left handed people are redheads Hey, I resemble that remark. Leave me out of this. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #95 July 31, 2003 QuoteQuoteIf television told you all left handed people are redheads Hey, I resemble that remark. Leave me out of this. I'm calling my congressmen to demand they support a constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage between lefthanded redheads. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #96 July 31, 2003 That wouldn't bother me. For some reason, I have found that redheads are generally not attracted to other redheads. I've usually been more attracted to blondes or brunettes. Not that there is anything wrong with redheaded women. They're just usually not my type. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #97 August 1, 2003 QuoteQuoteI for one do not support gay marriage. Would you support the idea of a gay civic union that would constitute the same binding agreement of marriage and that the government would recognize? Just wondering if it is a matter of semantics or the idea in general... Definitely wouldn't support the idea of marriage, as it is 'holy matrimony'. How would this civic union work, exactly? Joining assets/income? Making cheating on the other an affair? Does it go so far as to have them sharing last names? Being called Mr & Mr., being called husbands? I suppose it depends on how far it takes it. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #98 August 1, 2003 BOOBIES "My Durango....Number 95!!!" -Rob Zombie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeedToJump 0 #99 August 1, 2003 I'd see the civic union as being the same in a legal regard as a marriage but have nothing to do with religion. Joining of assets/income and being responsible for the spouses assets/income. Cheating is part of the moral obligations of a marriage, not legal (as far as I know.) The taking the last name of your spouse is just custom, it is not required by marriage. Basically the way I would see the civil union would be an government recognition of the joining of a couple and carry the same legal obligations that a marriage does, the rest is moral and customs and up to the particular couple.Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #100 August 1, 2003 I thought this thread was soon to be locked? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
